The Assembly met at noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

HRH the Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon

Mr Speaker: It is my sad duty to advise the House of the death on Saturday past, 9 February, of Her Royal Highness The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon. As Speaker, I have written today to Her Majesty The Queen to express condolences to her, to Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother and to the whole of the Royal Family on their sad loss.
As a token of our respect, I propose that all business be postponed and that the House do now, by leave, suspend for one hour, resuming the business at 1.00 pm. The sitting is, by leave, suspended.
The sitting was suspended at 12.03 pm.
On resuming —

Assembly Business

1.00 pm

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask you to explain to the House why, in the past, the House stood in silence for people and then commented on their passing — we had the deaths of the First Minister of Scotland, a journalist and a postal worker — and yet on the death of the only sister of the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom, it did not stand in silence to observe her passing? Can you assure me that it was not because of threats from certain Members of the House that, if that took place, they would see to it that they would be seated and would not take part in such a thing? Can you also explain to us why the Union flag is not flying at half mast on the Building today?

Mr Speaker: First of all, there was of course the death of one individual that was commemorated here, to which I think the Member did not refer. That is the death of a Member, Mr Tom Benson. As I recall, although I stand open to correction as ever, the deaths to which the Member referred were not all dealt with in the same way. In the case of Mr Benson and the First Minister of Scotland, I believe that there was a motion that was spoken to. In the other cases, I believe, there was a short period of silence. It does not seem appropriate that the passing of Her Royal Highness The Princess Margaret should be commemorated in exactly the same way, but rather in a different way. That has been done by the suspension of the House.
The second question that the Member asked was whether there was any threat, and I am sure that he means was it conveyed to me in any way — not just by word of mouth or in writing — and the answer is that there was not. No one spoke to me or raised the question with me. I try to use my best judgement to be the servant of the House, but no one raised any such questions.
The third question that the Member raised was on the flying of the flag. I enquired on Saturday morning as to whether there were any flag orders from the palace. I was advised that that was not the case. Subsequently, I made enquiries with the Parliaments in Westminster and Edinburgh, the Assembly in Wales and the Parliament in Dublin, none of which had made any decisions, but all were considering the matter this morning. I gave instruction that, if there was an order, the flag should fly at half mast, but, if there was not, that understanding from the palace should also be accepted.
It is my understanding that it is intended that the flag will fly at half mast throughout the country on the day of the funeral, which I understand to be Friday 15 February at St George’s Chapel. That is why the flag is not flying at half mast today. However, I expect there to be an order in respect of Friday 15 February, when the flag will fly at half mast.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a further point of order, Mr Speaker. Hansard reports that the House observed two minutes’ silence when the First Minister of Scotland died.

Mr Speaker: I believe that a motion was tabled on that occasion.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: That is correct.

Mr Speaker: That is the point I am making. The matter has been given some consideration. All deaths are in some way the same; that is one of the great levellers. However, there is another sense in which not all deaths have precisely the same meaning, and so they are handled differently. The Member will also notice, since I think he has Hansard to hand — and this may not be so well known to members of the public — that in certain circumstances a black border surrounds the relevant pages and, earlier this morning, I gave instructions that that should be done today.

Royal Assent

Mr Speaker: I wish to inform the House that Royal Assent has been signified to the Industrial Development Act (Northern Ireland) 2002. The Act became law on 7 February 2002.

Assembly Business: Suspension of Standing Orders

Resolved (with cross-community support):
That this Assembly suspends Standing Order 10(2) and Standing Order 10(6) for Monday 11 February 2002. — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel.]

Supply Resolutions: Spring Supplementary Estimates (2001-02) and Vote on Account (2002-03)

Mr Speaker: As the two motions relate to Supply resolutions, I propose to conduct one debate. I shall ask the Minister to move the first motion. The debate will then take place on both motions. At the end of the debate, the House will vote on the first motion. The Minister will then move the second motion formally, and the House will vote on it. The Business Committee has not imposed a time limit on the debate, and I do not intend to propose any limit on the length of Members’ contributions, hence the motion to suspend Standing Orders.

Dr Sean Farren: I beg to move
That this Assembly approves that a further sum not exceeding £198,035,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2002 and that further resources, not exceeding £574,419,000, be authorised for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2002 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 2(b) and 3(b) of Table 1 in the volume of the Northern Ireland spring Supplementary Estimates 2001-02 that was laid before the Assembly on 11 February 2002.
The following motion stood in the Order Paper:
That this Assembly approves that a sum not exceeding £3,936,009,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund on account for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2003 and that resources, not exceeding £4,486,387,000, be authorised, on account, for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2003 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 4 and 6 of Table 1 in the Vote on Account 2002-03 document that was laid before the Assembly on 11 February 2002. — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel.]

Dr Sean Farren: I introduce two important resolutions of the budgetary cycle. The first resolution seeks the approval of the Assembly to the issue of a further sum of £198 million from the Consolidated Fund and the use of additional resources amounting to £574 million for the 2001-02 financial year, as detailed in the spring Supplementary Estimates booklet.
The second resolution seeks the Assembly’s approval on the issue of a cash sum of £3,936 million on account for the 2002-03 financial year. It also seeks the Assembly’s authority for the use of resources amounting to £4,486 million on account in the 2002-03 financial year.
Before moving to the detail of those resolutions, I wish to acknowledge the confirmation by the Committee for Finance and Personnel that there has been adequate consultation with it on the public expenditure proposals reflected in those resolutions. I am aware of the Committee’s keen and proper interest in finance issues, and I look forward to working with the Committee in the coming months. I hope to build on the constructive and positive relationship established by my predecessor, Mark Durkan, and to see what more we can do to improve the consultative process and enhance the scrutiny role of the Assembly and its Committees.
As an Assembly, one of our fundamental responsibilities is to authorise expenditure and to hold Departments to account for how it is used. Resolutions such as those that I am introducing today are the basis on which the legislature, in the form of the Assembly, authorises the spending of the Departments, the Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office and other bodies for the exercise of their various functions. That is one of the main means we have of ensuring that we deliver on our agreed plans and, in due course, deliver the Executive’s Programme for Government.
The scope of the debate covers expenditure in 2001-02 and 2002-03. The first of the two resolutions is the means by which Supplementary Estimates can be examined by the Assembly. As was the case with the Main Estimates for 2001-02, and as is now the normal practice, those Supplementary Estimates are also presented on a resource basis. The Supplementary Estimates are the main means of implementing and confirming the decisions by the Executive on the allocation of resources brought forward from 2000-01 under the end-year flexibility arrangements, and on the reallocation of resources through the in-year monitoring rounds in June, September and December. It also includes decisions that have been made in relation to the second tranche of the Executive programme funds, which my predecessor, Mark Durkan, announced on 3 December. Therefore, the Supplementary Estimates represent the implementation of financial decisions that we have taken since the Assembly agreed the opening position when it approved the Main Estimates last June.
I wish to emphasise a fundamentally important aspect of the first resolution: we are not dealing with new proposals; we are merely giving effect to decisions that have already been made and brought to the attention of the Assembly.
The second resolution is the usual means by which, at this point in the financial cycle, Departments’ ongoing financial commitments are authorised during the period between the beginning of the 2002-03 financial year and the presentation to the Assembly of the Main Estimates for that year, which will take place in June. In general, the cash and resource amounts required on account have been calculated as 45% of the 2001-02 total voted provision.
As its name suggests, the Vote on Account is not intended to seek the Assembly’s final approval of the allocations for 2002-03, since less than half of the total proposed Budget is being sought in this Budget Bill. It seeks sufficient resources and cash to allow services to proceed until the detailed work on the Main Estimates has been completed in the late spring. At that stage there will be a full opportunity to deal with the details of the spending plans for 2002-03. Last year there was prior discussion between my Department and the Committee for Finance and Personnel on the Main Estimates, and I propose to continue that practice. Thus, today I propose to focus on the issues relating to 2001-02, as this is the last major opportunity for discussion on that period before the end of the financial year.
This is only the second time that Supplementary Estimates have been presented to the Assembly, and it might be helpful if I remind Members of some important aspects of the Estimates that differ from the Budget and the monitoring rounds. First, the Estimates include all aspects of departmental expenditure that are subject to the authorisation of resources and associated cash appropriation. This means that they include annually managed expenditure as well as that which falls within the departmental expenditure limit. Because we receive automatic adjustment of estimated requirements for annually managed expenditure from the Treasury — and have to return any resources that we do not need to the Treasury — these items are not included in the scope of the public expenditure monitoring rounds, which the Executive conduct and which are regularly announced to the Assembly. The main items in this category are social security benefits — some of which are subject to annual appropriation or authorisation — and others that are charged under legislation to the National Insurance fund, and, hence, do not feature in the voting process. Annually managed expenditure also contains the major non-cash elements of departmental budgets arising from the transition to resource-based budgeting — principally depreciation and the cost of capital charges. Lastly, expenditure under the common agricultural policy also falls into this category because it is fully funded by the European agricultural guarantee and guidance fund.
As well as these annually managed expenditure items, there are some aspects of expenditure that were nominally attached to the departmental expenditure limit, but which are ring-fenced by the Treasury. [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. I fear that Members will have some difficulty following the complexity of this statement if they do not listen. They will also ensure that other Members do not hear the complexity of the statement.

Dr Sean Farren: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your intervention.
As we have no discretion in the use of these resources, they have not been included in our monitoring rounds. These include expenditure under the EU Peace programmes, and a special addition provided some years ago to cover the costs of the Moyle electricity interconnector. The Supplementary Estimates contain several reduced requirements under the EU Peace programmes that are needed to align with actual expenditure under the programmes. The funding will be made available again in future years and will not be lost to Northern Ireland.
I have already mentioned that some expenditure on social security is handled outside the voting system. This is because there are standing authorisations, in the form of specific legislation, which allow money to be drawn from the Consolidated Fund, or another fund, to provide the particular service. A further example arises when a Department makes a loan under a statutory power. Often under the cash regime the issue of the loan will count towards the departmental expenditure limit, but in some cases this would not need to come through the Estimates and voting system because there is a standing authorisation for the making of loans outside the vote.
Some of the important sources of room to manoeuvre are outside the appropriation system; in particular, receipts from house sales are outside the Department for Social Development votes. The total that determines what we can do is the departmental expenditure limit set by the Treasury. The house sales release some of that spending power, which makes it possible to afford an increase in the cash spending and hence helps us to afford the Supplementary Estimates.
We must also bear in mind the convention that Estimates are not reduced as the year progresses, even if it is clear that the Department concerned will not require the full extent of the Main Estimates cover. By their nature, the figures are estimates, and the sense of the resolution is that the Executive and the Departments are seeking authorisation for spending up to the figure quoted in the Estimates. I appreciate that it is difficult to fully take in all the parameters that surround the spending procedures, but, nonetheless, they are important for the record, and Members should have received the published statement.
The final complication that I need to mention is that there can be agreed transfers of resources between Departments, among Departments of the Executive and the Northern Ireland Office or between Departments here and Whitehall Departments. By convention, if responsibility for a function transfers, the departmental expenditure limit spending provision transfers with it.
All these factors are important. They affect how the figures that are discussed and set out in the Budget planning documents and in the subsequent monitoring rounds are in the end reflected in the final amounts, which must be authorised for issue from the Consolidated Fund to cover the approved expenditure. This is undeniably complex but essential in order to meet the twin requirements that we keep expenditure within the overall Northern Ireland departmental expenditure limit and seek authorisation for no greater amount of expenditure than is set out in the Estimates.
The approval of the Main Estimates for 2001-02 by the Assembly last June provided the detailed basis for the allocation and use of resources for the specific purposes described in the Estimates. Since then there have been in-year monitoring rounds in June, September and December, which resulted in decisions to make changes in these allocations, as well as a further announcement of funding from the Executive programme funds.
The in-year monitoring exercises provide an important means — indeed, usually the only means — by which we can respond to new pressures by taking advantage of any easements that emerge. I know that there has been some disquiet among Members about the substantial sums that have become available during monitoring rounds, and I have indicated that the Executive have agreed that we should examine the financial monitoring systems to see if there is room to improve our forecasting.
Let me address at this point a fundamental issue regarding the monitoring process, particularly as there has been an attempt to misrepresent how such moneys could, and should, be used. When Departments underspend on their budgets, those moneys are surrendered to the centre, where they can be reallocated according to the Executive’s priorities. They are not available for reallocation by Ministers within Departments. That would be wrong, as by their nature monitoring moneys are short term, and it would be politically dishonest to suggest that such funds could be used to address long-term policy issues. Some Members have suggested that underspent money in the Department for Employment and Learning, for example, could have been redirected towards student support.
Allegations of wastage have been made against that Department. Not only are such allegations factually incorrect in the amounts of money referred to with regard to underspends, but in making these misrepresentations a disservice is being rendered to the genuine cause of students’ welfare, to which the House has already directed considerable attention and resources.
In addressing these issues, particularly monitoring rounds, we must bear in mind the length of the financial planning cycle. We must also encourage Departments to continue to identify easements as early in the financial year as possible so that they can ensure that they are deployed to the best possible effect. A good example of this is the final monitoring round of the financial year, which is held in February. Practical opportunities to spend at that time are limited. Furthermore, decisions are made on the monitoring round after the Supplementary Estimates have been agreed. Therefore, there is limited scope to deploy funds. It is problematic if Departments make large surrenders at that stage, as the opportunities to allow other Departments to take advantage of the funding are limited.
The outcomes of the monitoring rounds and the decisions on the Executive programme funds have been accompanied by detailed statements to the Assembly at each stage. Although it is not possible to have prior consultations with the Committee for Finance and Personnel before announcing the Executive’s decisions on those monitoring rounds, Mark Durkan and I have been available to explain the position, and there has been scope since each monitoring round for any scrutiny that may have been required. In this context, I want to repeat Mark Durkan’s advice that Committees do not need a starting gun from the Department of Finance and Personnel to ask their Departments about emerging spending pressures, or to scrutinise performance at any time throughout the year. As I said, they have the liberty and the capacity to do so.
The total amount of the Supplementary Estimates is £574 million in resource terms and an associated cash requirement of £198 million for the year ending 31 March 2002. The detailed allocations contained in the booklets have been determined by Departments after careful consideration and approval by the Department of Finance and Personnel. Ministers will be better placed than I to explain and justify some of the detail, but, in so far as I can do so today, I shall try to deal with any of the matters raised by Members. If I cannot, I shall refer the matter to the relevant Minister for more detailed consideration.
To gain a picture of how the figures of £574 million and £198 million in resources and cash respectively are made up, one must go back to the decisions taken after the monitoring rounds. First, there is on this occasion a significant difference between the resource and cash requirements, as the figures show. That is largely due to an increase of £300 million of resources — but not cash — sought by the Department for Regional Development to reflect a reassessment of the value of the road network.
For the reasons that I have given, the amounts reallocated do not correspond exactly to the net surplus after monitoring, since several technical adjustments are also made at those stages.
For the reasons that I gave, the amounts reallocated do not correspond exactly to the net surplus after monitoring, because technical adjustments are made at those stages. However, during the monitoring rounds the Departments declared some £146·2 million as easements, which were weighed against bids for additional resources totalling £415·5 million. Inevitably, there is some double counting in the figures for bids, because unsuccessful bids in one round are likely to be repeated later. A further £30 million for Departments was also announced through the Executive programme funds. Those figures help to illustrate the process. I will say more about how individual allocations to individual Departments will be affected later.
As with the approval of the Main Estimates last June and the agreement of the Budget for 2002-03 in December, decisions about the allocation of resources have been influenced by equality requirements, as set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and policy precepts such as New TSN and the Programme for Government.
I know from the interest that Members and Committees demonstrated, especially the Committee for Finance and Personnel, that the responsibility that we fulfil today is not assumed lightly. As an Executive and an Assembly, we have a duty to ensure the highest standards of propriety in respect of public finances. That is an aspect of the authorisation, management and control of expenditure by the Assembly, the Departments and the bodies that they fund. The efficient use of resources is no less important as we strive to deliver the highest- quality public services from the funds available.
Those are matters in which the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have a particular interest. They can examine how public sector bodies perform in meeting their objectives and ensure that they do so with propriety and efficiency. As the Minister of Finance and Personnel, I acknowledge the important function that they perform and the interest, proposals and work of the Committee for Finance and Personnel.
I do not propose to discuss line by line the changes to the allocations for individual Departments, because the introduction to each departmental Estimate within the Supplementary Estimates booklet sets out in detail — some might say in too much detail — the main changes that are sought. I will, however, highlight some of the key changes.
The total net additional resource requirement of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is £54·5 million. In request for resources A, which provides for ongoing services and support measures, an additional £15·8 million net resource requirement is sought. Additions of £32 million are necessary. Those cover costs relating to animal disease, including foot-and-mouth disease, brucellosis, tuberculosis and BSE, as well as the funding required for the national element of the agrimonetary package. Those additions are offset by reductions totalling £16·2 million, including those resulting from a delay in the Northern Ireland scrapie plan as a result of foot-and-mouth disease, from the beef quality initiative, and the processing and marketing grants, which were affected by a delay in obtaining state aids approval. There are also reduced requirements for the funding of rural development grants, the European Union Peace programme, capital charges and depreciation costs.
In request for resources B, which provides for the work of the Rivers Agency, the Forest Service and sea fisheries, an additional £38·7 million net resource requirement is sought. Additions of £40·8 million are necessary, of which £38·7 million is for capital charges and depreciation costs attributable to revaluation of the assets of the Rivers Agency. Other additions arise in respect of foot-and-mouth-disease costs and the Forest Service.
These additions are offset by reductions totalling £2·1 million, which are mainly in respect of the European Union Peace programme. When the additional resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis, and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking additional cash of £17·6 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.
The total net additional resource requirement for the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is £13·2 million. The major additions are £10 million for the public library service to meet the one-off costs of the arrears arising from the job evaluation review, as well as ongoing costs, and an additional £1·6 million for the Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland (MAGNI) to address deficits and health-and-safety-related maintenance work.
The additions are offset by a reduction of £1 million through rescheduling of expenditure in the European Union Peace programme, and a number of smaller technical adjustments totalling £0·6 million. When the additional resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis, and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking additional cash of £12·3 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.
An increase of £13·6 million is sought by the Department of Education in request for resources A, which covers schools. That includes an increase of £16·4 million in capital provision, which is mainly for schools and includes provision of £2 million for disabled access. A sum of £10·2 million is being provided for teachers’ pay, £3 million for infrastructure provision for the Classroom 2000 project and £1·2 million for school fuel costs.
Those increases are offset principally by reduced requirements of £13 million on threshold payments to teachers, as, in accrual terms, certain threshold payments relate to the 2000-01 financial year, not the 2001-02 financial year. Other reduced requirements relate to the European Union Peace programme and the deferment of the introduction of the revised Northern Ireland curriculum from September 2003 to September 2004.
In request for resources B, which covers the Youth Service and community relations for young people, an increase of some £3·5 million is sought. This includes £1 million in mainstream Youth Service provision, including £0·1 million for support measures in north Belfast, as well as other additions totalling £3 million for capital programmes, European Union programmes and the Executive programme funds for the Youth Service. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis, and departmental capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking a cash increase of some £20·2 million to fund expenditure in the Estimate.
The total net additional resource requirement for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is £10·8 million. In request for resources A, which provides for the Department’s economic and regeneration measures, an additional net £12·2 million is sought. Additions include £16·5 million being carried forward from 2000-01 under end-year flexibility arrangements for the Moyle interconnector, £7 million for payments under the European Union Peace I programme, and £2 million to enable LEDU to meet an increase in demand for grants by the small business sector. Those additions have been offset by a reduced requirement of £13·6 million from the Industrial Development Board, arising from the economic downturn.
In request for resources B, which provides for equality, policy and regulatory measures, there is a net decrease of £1·4 million made up of a technical reallocation of £2·8 million to request for resources A for depreciation and capital charges and a further reallocation from request for resources A to request for resources B to meet administration, legal and consultancy costs. When the additional resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis, and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking additional cash of £12·8 million to fund expenditure on this Estimate.
The total net additional resource requirement for the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas is £0·3 million. This includes additional provision to cover salary and associated costs on gas-related work and results in a cash requirement of £0·2 million to fund expenditure on this Estimate.
The Department for Regional Development is seeking an increase of just over £306 million in the total net resource requirement. There is a reduction of under £5 million in the total provision to meet direct expenditure on the purchase of assets and investment in capital projects. The Department’s request for resources A covers roads, transport and strategic planning functions with related central administration. The increase of approximately £315 million is attributable mainly to an increase in non-cash costs such as depreciation and capital charges after a revaluation of the road network. Additional resources of just under £11 million are being made available for structural maintenance and essential bridge maintenance as well as to meet the increased costs of certain oil-based products. These additional costs are partly offset by an increase of £1 million in income, mainly from car-parking charges.
Provision for capital expenditure by the Roads Service is reduced by £1·7 million due to delays in the progress of some road schemes. An increase of £1·4 million is for the purchase of the new Strangford ferry and reflects a redistribution of resources in the Roads Service. On the transport side there are increases of £2·8 million for the public service obligation compensation payable to Northern Ireland Railways and £3 million for grants to the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company for rail and bus fare concessions. Request for resources A also includes an additional £5 million to fund capital expenditure by the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company.
In the Department’s request for resources B, which relates to the provision of water and sewerage services, there is an overall reduction in the total net resource requirement. That largely reflects a reassessment of depreciation and the cost of capital charges and other non-cash costs. An increase of £2·5 million is sought to cover increased salary and wage costs as well as an increase of £3·3 million to meet additional costs incurred for sludge disposal and odour reduction measures. Those increases are partly offset by additional income of £1 million, mainly from metered water charges.
On the capital side, the increase in provision of £1·4 million includes an additional £0·8 million for the purchase of information technology equipment, together with a redistribution of resources. When accruals to cash adjustments are made, the Department for Regional Development’s net cash requirement for the year is increased by £19 million to £528 million.
The Department for Employment and Learning is seeking an increase of £3·2 million in request for resources A covering higher and further education and student support. The increase is to provide disabled people with access to higher and further education institutions, to cover a higher than expected pay award for further education lecturers, additional grant for Lisburn College and additional private finance initiative (PFI) costs, and to take account of carry forward of unspent capital budget under the end-year flexibility scheme.
The total net additional resource requirement for the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is £94·9 million. In request for resources A, which mainly provides for ongoing departmental administration costs, an additional £1 million net resource requirement is being sought. That includes funding for the Occupational Health Service, £0·2 million for additional staff, and cover for reduced income. It is offset by a reduction in the Health Estates Agency.
An additional £92·9 million net resource requirement is being sought in request for resources B, which provides for the health and personal social services programme. This includes £49·6 million, which is a non-cash adjustment with neutral impact on the overall spending power. Additional funds have been made available to the Health Service at each monitoring round during the current financial year and include £28 million towards hospital and community care pressures.
Ten million pounds was made available for health and social services trust deficits. Decisions made by the Executive, coupled with careful financial management and monitoring, mean that positive steps have been taken to ensure that the financial management of the Health Service has been put onto a firmer footing and that expenditure will be managed within the resources available. Funding has also gone towards increasing access to new treatment for rheumatoid arthritis and to cardiac surgery, and towards measures to facilitate earlier discharge from hospital and to prevent avoidable admission.
Other significant increases within this request for resources include £5 million for demand-led family health services, £2 million towards clinical negligence settlements, £3 million for drug strategy projects and action to combat drugs, and £1·4 million for grants available under the EU Peace programme. The total increase in this area has been offset by £9 million additional receipts from Health Service contributions.
Request for resources C contains an additional £1 million for the Fire Authority towards staff pension costs. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis, and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is seeking an additional £46 million to fund expenditure on this Estimate.
The Department for Social Development is seeking increases in its three requests for resources. An increase of £14 million is being sought in request for resources A, which covers the Department’s social security and child support programmes. That is made up of additional non-contributory and income-related benefit expenditure of £9 million due to increased requirements for a range of benefits and payments. A further £1 million is required for administration, and £4 million for certain non-cash items.
In request for resources B, which covers the Department’s housing programme, additional resources of £5 million are being sought, mainly in the revenue grant to the Housing Executive.
Additional resources of £14·5 million are being sought in request for resources C, which covers the Department’s urban regeneration and community development programme. Those include additional funding for Making Belfast Work and the Derry Regeneration Initiative’s programme expenditure, the EU programmes, the Executive programme funds and administration costs. When the resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis, and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Department is seeking an additional £34 million cash to fund expenditure on the Estimate.
I now turn to the Department of Finance and Personnel, where an additional £24,000 is being sought in request for resources A to cover additional running costs in the central finance group.
An additional £6·1 million is required in request for resources B, which covers support for public sector business performance. That covers the net effect of the increased costs of running the Government estate and the census, the provision of research and statistical services, and the provision of purchasing services, which are funded by transfers by other Departments. The sum of £49,000 is required in request for resources C, arising from the implementation of the final phase of the Valuation and Lands Agency’s grade and structure review.
The Department of Finance and Personnel seeks an additional £19·3 million to meet higher than anticipated costs associated with the operation of the Civil Service superannuation scheme. I emphasise that those costs are borne in annually managed expenditure and, therefore, do not restrict the resources available for allocation by the Executive. The main reasons for the increase are the higher than anticipated transfer-out costs — where members leave the superannuation scheme — and the increasing numbers reaching normal retirement age.
An increase in resources of £3·8 million is sought for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Some £2 million of that increase relates to provision for the North/South Ministerial Council, the Civic Forum, the Planning Appeals Commission and the Water Appeals Commission. The balance is required to meet the cost of departmental administration, foot-and-mouth-disease advertisements, the increased provision for the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and the European Union Peace programme.
When the additional resource requirement is adjusted to a cash basis, and capital expenditure is taken into account, the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy Minister is seeking an additional cash sum of £3·6 million to fund expenditure on the Estimate.
The total net additional resource requirement for the Northern Ireland Assembly is £1·4 million. That reflects the transfer of provision from resources to capital of £7·9 million arising from the purchase and refurbishment of additional accommodation — principally, Ormiston House — and an increase in depreciation and capital charges of £9·3 million after the revaluation of existing assets and the purchase of additional assets. When the additional resources requirement is adjusted to a cash basis, the Northern Ireland Assembly is seeking additional cash of £90,000 to fund expenditure on the Estimate.
In respect of the Northern Ireland Audit Office, and the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, there are small increases of £49,000 and £13,000 respectively.
That deals with the resolution for the spring Supplementary Estimates. I will endeavour to answer Members’ questions.
I will turn now to the second Supply resolution for the issue of an amount — that is, a cash sum — of £3,936 million to be granted on account towards defraying the costs incurred by Departments and the use of resources of some £4,486 million for the same purposes in the year 2002-03. The cash sum and the resource totals for which approval is sought represent a Vote on Account, pending the bringing forward of the Main Estimates to the Assembly in June. A Vote on Account at this point in the financial year, prior to the year in which the cash or resources will be used, is a normal feature of Government financial management. It arises because, after the Assembly’s approval of the Budget in December, detailed work has to be undertaken by Departments, and by the Department of Finance and Personnel, to disaggregate and allocate resource requirements for individual purposes, often through narrowly defined line entries.
The Vote on Account reflects both the allocation of cash to Departments and the allocation, up to a limit, for the use of resources. As already explained, the Vote on Account takes account of the levels of expenditure agreed by the Assembly in the Budget and will be consistent with the figure work brought forward in the Main Estimates later this year. There will, of course, be an opportunity for a full debate on the details at that stage.
In the interim, the Vote on Account will fund Departments to implement the ongoing programmes and services for which they are responsible and which form part of the Budget decisions that were taken last December.
As I have said, this is the second occasion on which a Minister of Finance and Personnel has presented Supplementary Estimates to the Assembly. The devolved Assembly has again been able to make decisions for a complete financial year. We have also announced the first allocations from the Executive programme funds in this financial year. However, the Executive are conscious of the need to ensure that resources are targeted effectively. As Minister of Finance and Personnel, I intend to ensure that future financial recommendations continue to be subject to careful and detailed scrutiny — and to challenge, if necessary.
The Assembly and the Committees have a vital role to play in these processes. I am committed to doing all that is possible to ensure that Members can fulfil their responsibilities effectively. In that context, I have noted that the Committee for Finance and Personnel has expressed several concerns about the process, the documentation and the time available for consideration of matters.
I fully understand those concerns, and I acknowledge the need for further developments. We face real difficulties as a result of the timescale to which we must work. I will examine the scope for improvement, and I will work with the Committee to achieve that end in the months ahead. To assist us to ensure that we are targeting funding in the most appropriate way possible, we are carrying out a review of the Executive programme funds, which will inform our shaping of the future management and direction of those funds. We will continue to attach the highest priority to ensuring that we manage and control the resources that are available to us.
Through the Programme for Government and the Budget, we have the opportunity to set out our priorities and plans. Our challenge is to provide the highest-quality services to our citizens.
The detail of my statement is complex by its nature — perhaps it is made more complex by looking backwards while planning for the future, but it is appropriate that we do so. The Executive and the Assembly have achieved much in the past two years. We are getting to grips with the challenge of setting our own spending priorities and directing resources towards them. Our challenge is to continue to spend money in an efficient and effective way, so that the people whom we serve can see that we are making a difference. We have made a good start, and the advantages of devolution are on display in the Chamber this afternoon.
Achieving our aims for the future will not be easy or straightforward, and this will not be a comfortable year financially. We face a crucial spending review, which will conclude in the summer. Many Members appreciate that challenging the Barnett formula is not a no-risk option. Ministers and I will weigh these matters carefully before proceeding, and I will continue to value the advice of the departmental Committee and the Assembly before doing so.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his statement and detailed explanation of the spring Supplementary Estimates. At its meeting on 5 February, the Committee for Finance and Personnel considered the near final proof document of the spring Supplementary Estimates for 2001-02 and the Vote on Account for 2002-03. Department of Finance and Personnel officials appeared before the Committee to answer questions and to help it to navigate its way through those difficult issues. The documentation involved is dense.
The Committee acknowledges that the format of the Estimates is naturally detailed and that the Minister inherited the current versions. The Committee also accepts that the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting has added a layer of detail to what was already a complicated financial document. The Committee is concerned about the short period provided for Committees to scrutinise the Estimates. It is also essential that the format of the Estimates be user-friendly so that the Assembly and its Committees can do their job effectively. Appropriate guidance must be made available to enable Members to make sense of the Estimates, which they are expected to approve, and to inform the public. Department of Finance and Personnel officials share that concern and have undertaken to address it. The Committee is concerned that that matter be progressed urgently and that the improvements are in place before the Main Estimates in June.
The timing of the debate and the arrival only this morning of the final version of the Estimates and the Vote on Account leave much to be desired. The Committee must not be taken for granted. It will not continue simply to be a rubber stamp for accelerated passage of the Budget Bill unless the Executive provide sufficient opportunity for consultation and scrutiny. That is a crucial issue. Last week the Committee considered the matter in detail before it approved the Bill’s accelerated passage.
The Assembly must find ways to help Committees. Departments must co-operate with them to ensure that that happens. The Committee welcomed the Minister’s recent decision to review the effectiveness of the in-year monitoring procedure against the considerable quantum of reallocations. Departments already have problems in quantifying their budget needs. There is a danger that resources are being deployed and not spent. Those resources could be spent by other Departments and might have been more effectively allocated elsewhere in the first instance. The Assembly must examine budgeting and how it is followed up so that it targets the Departments that are most in need.
The Committee urges the Minister to complete his review in time for the first monitoring round of the new financial year. It will look carefully at any proposals that emerge. The Committee accepts that the Estimates documentation may remain dense and complicated. There may be some advantage in the Department of Finance and Personnel providing for Committees and Members a training and awareness seminar on the subject. I wrote to the Minister to highlight those issues on 7 February. I hope that he will be able to respond positively to the Committee’s concerns. Although the Committee for Finance and Personnel accepted the accounting nature of the Supply Resolutions and has formally written to the Speaker to approve the accelerated passage of the Budget Bill under Standing Order 42, the Minister and the Executive must reflect on the concerns that were raised, and about which I spoke earlier. The process must be remedied in time so that the situation can be rectified before the Main Estimates in June.
Speaking as a Member from west of the Bann, not as a Committee Chairperson, I reiterate some issues. The Assembly must examine the lack of health facilities, poor infrastructure, poor school buildings and all the other issues that were targeted as priorities in the Programme for Government. Proper budgeting by Departments is necessary. It is noticeable that £198 million is reallocated in various ways by Committees under the monitoring rounds. That money is recycled several times. If, at the outset, that money had been allocated in Budget form to the Department that needed it most, the continuous monitoring rounds might involve less money. This is not new money — as the Minister said several times — it is money that has been regurgitated. We must examine this issue.
The Assembly has three priorities, health, education and infrastructure, and these are needed most west of the Bann. The money must be correctly allocated, and I am glad that the Minister agrees that there must be a review of that procedure. The Assembly must address the imbalance that exists between the areas east and west of the Bann. The west of the Bann has been neglected for years by Unionists in the old Stormont Parliament and by the British Government during direct rule. This situation must be changed if the Assembly is to signal new ways of moving forward. We must redress the balance.
We must ensure that New TSN is not just about the three letters "T", "S" and "N". We must ensure that we are targeting social need where it arises. Unfortunately, this approach was not followed during the allocations of European funding. Although that is not the Minister’s direct responsibility in his present role, it is part of the Department of Finance and Personnel’s remit. How is a situation dealt with whereby an area west of the Bann is depopulated over years and then population is used as an indicator for allocating European funds? The indicator has been a failure. Depopulation has caused the west to suffer in relation to jobs, housing, infrastructure and economic development. If budgets are to target social need, the Assembly must put itself in a position to address this problem. The present system is not doing that. We are simply doing what has been done in the past and following the same patterns.
Timescales are too short. Committees do not have enough time to scrutinise Budgets and develop their ideas. Departments do not have time to think through new policies. I had hoped that this could have happened with respect to the Executive programme funds, but it has not. Executive programme funds are being allocated in the same way as normal budgeting rounds.
I will return to the monitoring rounds. A total of £198 million is being recycled year after year. If health were to be prioritised, we could allocate that money to the Department at the beginning of the budgeting round to address the imbalance. Over time we could prioritise housing, education and infrastructure instead of simply recycling money. If the Assembly did that, it would start to redress the balance of the past. If it cannot do that, the Assembly will fail.
In the new rounds each Department and Committee must take this situation into account when they are in the bidding process, and not simply wait until this stage, which is merely a rubber-stamping exercise. We must look at departmental bids. Are they targeting social need? Is the money going where it should, or are Departments budgeting for things that they may want to implement but cannot deliver?
I ask Committee members to ensure that they are involved in the process and that they receive the information. I hear, through the Chairpersons Liaison Committee, that Members cannot get information from relevant Departments. Members are entitled to that information. I urge them to get the relevant information and become involved in the bidding process, so that the Assembly is not simply rubber-stamping the Budget at the end of the process. In that way, we can address the imbalance and make good progress for the future. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I want to place on record my sincere thanks to the Minister of Finance and Personnel for the detailed presentation of the spring Supplementary Estimates, and also for touching on the Budget for 2002-03.
One of the greatest problems in any Budget debate in Northern Ireland is that we are, as someone recently put it, seeking pieces of a pre-baked cake, in that we have very little or almost no ability to expand our revenue and hence to expand our expenditure. Quite correctly, there are, and will be, considerable tensions between Departments in seeking the maximum share of the cake.
I assume — and I hope that the Minister will confirm this — that it is the Executive’s collective responsibility to determine the priorities to which the various sectors of the cake are allocated. In other words, is there corporate responsibility within the Executive for the budgets now being put before us? Added revenue resulting from each proposition made by any Department must, because of the finite cake, be taken from some other Department or cause. It is incumbent on any Minister or any Member who asks for additional resources to have the courage to indicate where those resources should come from. Otherwise it is a glib question, and we should not raise people’s hopes on various financial matters that are not in the control of the Assembly or the Executive.
In that frame of mind, I assume that the Minister can confirm that the Minister for each Department agrees with the Budget, with the Supplementary Estimates for 2001-02 and the proposals for 2002-03.
Time and time again I am surprised when certain individual Ministers claim that in some way they have been deprived of resources to do x, y or z. I have always assumed — and if I am wrong I hope that the Minister will correct me — that each Minister agrees to his or her own budget and to the totality of the Budget. In that process there must be give and take, but that is the position, and we must therefore desist from passing the buck to other Departments or Ministers. Otherwise, the Minister should explain that our 10 Departments are independent and not related at all, but I do not believe that for a minute.
In general terms, however, we must question where we can expand the resources available to us. We should pursue possible alternative sources of revenue, either within or without our jurisdiction. I am not ashamed to admit that I would seek additional resources from other countries on the grounds that they understand our problems, that they have been sympathetic and that they have contributed in the past. Only now do we evaluate the huge shortfall in almost every Department as a result of the years of direct rule. Time and again the enormity of the lack of infrastructure and basic capital expenditure during that time comes to the fore. I note that the Minister in his introduction indicated at least an amber light in respect of the Barnett formula, although he advised us to weigh up the risk options when dealing with that problem. However, off the cuff it looks as if that is the only option we have at the moment — risks and all — whether we like it or not, in the hope that fair play and justice will win in the end.
On top of that, multimillion pounds of additional funding are announced from time to time for roads or health by the Exchequer in London. Does an appropriate part of that filter down to the Government and Departments in Northern Ireland? I am not very sure that it does.
Maximising parallel funding is another important area that we should engage in strenuously, not only at Executive administrative level but at local government level. Time and time again I hear rumours — although I seldom hear the facts — that European funding, which requires parallel funding from the Exchequer, cannot come into play either because of the absence of parallel funding or, sometimes, because of the lack of efficient administration and appropriate application. The Assembly has a duty to assist local authorities, of whatever nature, when they seek external funding. We must offer them expertise and advice, and open their lines of communication.
The Minister said that the amount indicated for 2002–03 is not the final allocation, and I am sure that we shall return to the various sectors during debates in the early summer and the autumn.
It would be inappropriate for a Member to speak in such a debate and to be completely global in his or her remarks. Therefore, it may be that I have an excuse to be slightly parochial for a moment, but I shall try to apply a general thesis. Will the Minister, or the appropriate Minister, confirm that, if a hospital construction is programmed to take place immediately after the Hayes review, it should be specific in the Estimates for 2002-03 at this stage? If not, I presume that any comment to the contrary would be false, especially in view of the fact that the money for Downe Hospital has, allegedly, been available for four years. However, as I am unaware of its being reallocated to another project, I presume that it was never there. That is another story.
There is also the question of the strong promises that were made for the Mourne health facility that was demolished six years ago and was to have been replaced. Again, that is not the Minister of Finance and Personnel’s responsibility, but if after six years it is not in a funding programme, I wonder whether the project is capable of delivery in the allocated time frame.
Is there any scope to introduce free residential care for the elderly? The issue is twofold. First, there is the obvious benefit that residential care creates. Secondly, Members know that many beds that could serve other purposes are tied up locally because hospitals are unable to discharge the elderly into their communities.
Mr Molloy mentioned educational allocation. Is the concept of equality proofing and rural proofing fully applied to all the allocations across the sectors? Mr Molloy referred to some sectors; I refer to all sectors because it must be applied to all Departments.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Is the hon Gentleman clear about what rural proofing really means? We have been seeking a definition from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for many months, and we have not been given an answer.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I do not know whether to thank the Member for his intervention, because I cannot answer his question.
We have a concept of rural proofing. I know what I mean when I use the term "rural proofing". I am not aware of any departmental definition of the term, but it has been talked about a great deal in the Executive’s Programme for Government and in relation to the concept of equality. The Noble indices have been introduced to show shortfalls in social resources, and my guess is that rural communities, in particular, are under-represented as regards allocations. It is easier to focus on the visible deprivation in urban areas, but deprivation is often not as apparent in rural communities. That is why I am anxious that this aspect of rural proofing be applied urgently to the allocations in all Departments.
Equality and rural proofing are also relevant to the Department for Regional Development. The Assembly has recently debated the Department’s transport policy and other policies and, speaking as a representative of south-east Ulster, I think that it is becoming apparent that there is a shortfall in allocations to these programmes and intentions in that area. I cannot go into detail about that.
Fishing is often not mentioned, although it is the responsibility of the same Department as agriculture. Fishing is a major industry in my constituency. Will there be provision in the 2002-03 Estimates for a new policy for agricultural development? There is a vision group paper on the subject, which is at consultation stage and which will be addressed in detail in the next couple of months. However, in the aftermath of BSE, foot-and-mouth disease and the crisis with international exchange rates and the green pound, it is essential that we have a definitive policy, backed by finance, to allow those who wish to retire from farming to do so with dignity and a degree of financial and social security.
We must also have the ability to introduce new blood to the agriculture industry by providing, for example, a scheme similar to the Dutch one. Such a scheme would allow new entrants who are well trained, well versed in farming, modern technologies and trade techniques to be brought into the farming industry. Unless we have such a vision for agriculture, backed by finance, we will simply be treading water.
It is very tempting to speak about all Departments, Mr Speaker, but you will frown upon me if I speak for much longer. I hope that we have an opportunity to address some fundamental policy issues so that we can re-resource and reallocate funding for 2002-03. Aside from the urgent need to spend current Budget allocations within the current financial year, of which there are about five or six weeks remaining, there is not much that we can do about initiating and paying for new schemes.
Given the often-repeated announcements from the Blair/Brown axis that millions of pounds of additional resources are being put into roads, education and health, can we be assured that we will get a real and meaningful share of that money, backed up by compensation for the shortfall that we suffered under years of direct rule? That is my central concern.
Can we also look for alternative resources with which to build a bigger cake, so that Departments can be given a bigger slice to deal with their various requirements? The principles of the Barnett formula are difficult to grasp, but there is no point in dealing with that issue today. However, I hope that at the end of that we will have an outcome that will substantially enhance the resources available to Northern Ireland.
Will the Minister confirm that the spring Supplementary Estimates, and the Estimates for 2002-03, are the consequences of an agreed Budget, reflecting the input of every Minister who signs up to and agrees with it? Furthermore, does the Minister agree that, in principle, it is totally wrong for a Minister to say that they were not given x or y by another Minister? Responsibility for the Budget is either collegiate or it is not. If it is not, I would like to know that so that I can handle the matter differently. If responsibility is collegiate, Ministers making statements outside the House should show more honesty and integrity.

Mr Speaker: The House will know that we must interrupt the debate at 2.30 pm for Question Time. I am therefore hesitant to call the next Member on my list — the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, Dr Paisley — because I suspect that he would barely be getting into his stride when I would have to interrupt him. Of course, he could resume his remarks after 4.00 pm, but I think that it would fairer to him, and to the House, if we were to make clear that he will be called at 4.00 pm. In the meantime, the House will take its leisure for a few minutes.

Education

I wish to advise Members that question 9, in the name of Mr John Kelly, has been transferred to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and will receive a written answer. I do not see Ms Lewsley in her place, so I call Mr Ken Robinson.


Question 1.


That takes cross-community co-operation a bit further than is legitimate in the Chamber.

Salary Differentials

2. asked the Minister of Education what steps he is taking to ensure that salary differentials continue to exist for vice-principals and principals of schools following the introduction of threshold payments for teachers.
(AQO790/01)


The agreement negotiated last year between management and teachers on the teachers’ salaries and conditions of service committee recognises that there should be appropriate salary differentials. Under that agreement, a vice-principal’s salary range starts at a point above the salary of the highest-paid teacher in the school. In turn, the first point on the principal’s salary range must be higher than the top point of the vice-principal’s salary range.
The problem lies in reaching agreement on appropriate differentials, given the differences between schools in management structures, job weights and existing pay differentials. The employing authorities and my Department have been working hard on guidance for boards of governors on the pay arrangements for principals and vice-principals. Although this has not been a straightforward task, it is expected that the guidance will issue very shortly. Any consequential pay changes for principals and vice-principals will be backdated to 1 September 2000.


Does the Minister agree that the people who have held our schools and community together over the past 30 years, when others were hell-bent on destruction, now deserve to see a tangible reward for their loyalty and dedication? Also, does the Minister consider it proper when a teacher at the top of her scale is promoted to the post of vice-principal and, as a consequence, is £500 less well off, or when two vice-principals now find themselves on a salary £1,500 lower than the highest-paid teacher in their school, or, indeed, when a teaching principal who worked in the evenings and over the weekends to ensure that his colleagues received their threshold increase has yet to be told when his differential will be restored?


When the pay agreement was reached last year, priority was given to putting in place the arrangements for assessing eligible teachers and paying salary increases to those assessed as meeting the standards. Principals, assessors and the employing authorities have done an excellent job in completing almost all the assessments, and some 70% of successful teachers have now been paid. The new arrangement for vice-principals has not yet been implemented because of the priority given to threshold assessments. When it is implemented shortly, all vice-principals will receive more than their teachers, and the awards will be backdated to the same date as that applying to teachers.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister instigate an independent inquiry into teachers’ pay and conditions?


I am still considering that matter. I have received further representations from teachers, and I expect to announce my decision soon.

Care of Young People

3. asked the Minister of Education to detail any discussions he has had with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety regarding the care of young people leaving schools such as Hillcroft Special School, Newtownabbey, at the age of 19.
(AQO783/01)


I personally have not had discussions with my Colleague, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, on this issue. However, the procedures are as follows. The Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 requires education and library boards to refer pupils in special schools to the relevant health and social services trust at age 14 for an opinion as to whether they come within the scope of the Act and are, therefore, likely to require further care when they leave school. The special education legislation imposes certain duties on boards regarding transition planning. My Department’s code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs provides further advice on the process. Boards are required to inform trusts about a young person leaving special school up to a year in advance.


I thank the Minister for his response on the procedures. The issue is clearly of major concern and another area was highlighted in the press at the weekend.
Before the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, special schools under the control of health and social services boards appear to have had much greater co-ordination with sheltered workshops and adult centres than they have now. Is it acceptable that, because of difficulties with provision, young people are thrown out of the only available care for them in special schools before alternative care is provided?


Education and library boards are required to notify health and social services boards and trusts for an opinion on whether young people in special schools who reach the age of 14 are disabled according to the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 and may, therefore, require further care on leaving school. That happens at least two years, but more commonly five years, before such young people leave school. I cannot see any merit in earlier notification, although we are all responsible for examining those issues.
Health and social services trusts may wish to approach the education and library boards about that specific problem to see if opportunities exist for the use of school facilities out of school hours. For example, special schools’ assembly halls could be used for sports or drama activities, specialist rooms could be used for home economics, art, craft and technology, and it might be possible to use hydrotherapy pools, if they were available. That would, of course, be subject to agreement between the trust, the board and the school.


What measures are being taken to prepare young people in special schools for life after school at the age of 19?


The education and library boards are required to prepare a transition plan at the first annual review of the statement of special educational needs after a young person reaches the age of 14, and a transition plan is designed to facilitate a satisfactory transition from childhood to adulthood. It contains the arrangements that a board considers appropriate for a young person who is aged between 14 and 19, including special educational provision and any other necessary provision such as suitable accommodation, leisure activities and employment.


I do not see Mr Kennedy in his place, so I call Mr Mick Murphy.

Post-Primary Provision

5. asked the Minister of Education what is the core issue in the current debate on post- primary provision; and to make a statement.
(AQO814/01)


The core issue in the current debate is academic selection. The weaknesses of the current selective arrangements were evidenced by the research undertaken by Prof Gallagher, Prof Smith, Save the Children and Prof Gardiner. The submissions to the review body made it clear that the public supports change, and the Assembly endorsed the Committee for Education’s conclusion that change is necessary and appropriate. The status quo is not an option.
There is widespread demand for the abolition of the 11-plus test, but it important to realise that that cannot take place unless academic selection is also abolished. I want to encourage debate on the issue, and for that reason I have extended the consultation period.


As the Minister knows, many children were traumatised over the weekend when the 11-plus results were issued, and I for one look forward to the end of this cruel scheme. Will the Minister comment on this year’s transfer test results?


I am sure that all pupils who sat the tests did their best, and I offer my congratulations to all pupils who are in the final year of their primary education. After the test results, there will be rejoicing in many families, but it is important to remember that there will be great disappointment and a sense of failure in many more.
Academic selection and the transfer test mean that two thirds of our children are deemed to be failures, which puts undue pressure on pupils, parents and teachers. For that reason there is widespread demand for the abolition of the test. We now have an opportunity to consider new post-primary arrangements that will value and cherish all children equally. They will open up options rather than close them down, and they will avoid having the majority of our children regarded as failures at the age of 11. To do so, we must address the issue of academic selection.


Does the Minister accept that in any post-primary system of education there will always be extremely good schools that will be oversubscribed, and that selection in some form is therefore inevitable? Does the Minister really believe that selection by postcode, and the financial inequity that that would create, is a better system for the twenty-first century?


I understand that there are concerns about the admissions criteria proposed in the review body’s report. My objective is to put in place arrangements that will provide excellence, equality and choice for all children. I do not want to disadvantage children in particular areas. The issue of proximity as the final criterion has raised particular concern, but it is important to remember that the majority of secondary schools and over half the grammar schools already use this criterion as a tie-breaker. However, as part of the consultation process, I would encourage people to consider and suggest alternatives.


Does the Minister recognise that when bleeding-heart liberals in England and Wales took us down the road of comprehensive education, it led to poorer results there than in Northern Ireland, where the selection system was retained? Would it not be better to refine the selection system rather than go down the road of social engineering, which will end in poorer results for the children of Northern Ireland in the future?


Much work has been done on this issue over some time. The work carried out by Prof Tony Gallagher and Prof Alan Smith at Queen’s University Belfast and the University of Ulster made clear that the weaknesses of the current arrangements are unacceptable, and they must be addressed. Everybody, including the members of the Committee for Education, accepts that there is a need for change. Therefore, the status quo is not an option. The issue of academic selection must be addressed — that is at the heart of this debate.
There is a complacency about how well we perform compared with other countries. For example, the recent Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study of reading, mathematics and science showed that we performed no better than England and Scotland. We were well behind other industrialised countries. The top performers — countries such as Finland and New Zealand — had non-selective systems.
Of the countries surveyed, we also have one of the widest ranges of performance. Within these islands, Scotland, which has a comprehensive system, has as many pupils gaining five GCSEs at grades A* to C and a similar proportion of young people entering higher education. England, which is often caricatured as having a failed comprehensive system, has a higher proportion of pupils achieving five GCSE passes at grades A to G than here in the North. Although we have more pupils who gain higher grade passes than in England, we also have more pupils who gain few passes at any grade. That highlights the wide range of achievement created by our academically selective system. We must face up to the fact that it is a system that does very well for some but poorly for many.

Working Groups

6. asked the Minister of Education, pursuant to AQW 1444/01, to refrain from setting up working groups until such time as the consultation process on the Burns Report has been completed.
(AQO789/01)


I will not be making any decisions about new arrangements until I have considered the comments received during the consultation period, which ends on 28 June. However, it is important that my officials consider and assess the implications of the Burns proposals across the full range of the Department of Education’s responsibilities.


Is the Minister aware that a growing number of headmasters, boards of governors and teachers are of the belief that working groups, committees and subcommittees have been established, and that those groups are working towards an outcome that has already been decided?
Is the Minister also aware that there is growing concern in large sections of the teaching profession that the present consultation exercise is really little more than a sham and a deliberate effort to suppress the excellence already being achieved within the system via grammar schools, an excellence unparalleled in the United Kingdom and Ireland?


It is intended that working groups of officials will be established by the end of February. No decisions have been taken on any of the proposals in the Burns review, and no team has been set up to implement them. A small team comprising six officials, including support staff, has been established to manage the consultation, to receive and analyse comments and to introduce proposals for decisions in due course.
That consultation will be vital. I ask everybody with an interest in education to make a response to the consultation process by 28 June. It will be a real consultation. As an important aid to discussion, my Department intends to bring out a video which will be widely seen and will be followed by a pamphlet, which will be widely distributed, to give people an opportunity to respond on this important matter.
My Department is also looking at ways in which it can reach those who are less articulate and who might have difficulty responding. It intends to make the consultation process as easy as possible. The work is important and getting it right will be one of the most important tasks that the Assembly will have to face in its first term. Every Member has a responsibility to play his or her part. This is not about structures; it is about putting in place the best possible education system for children in a modern world. That is why I hope that there will be no politicking on the issue and that people will face up to the challenges and recognise that they can do a great service to society, teachers, pupils and parents by getting this right.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s answers. It is obvious from the supplementary questions from the other side of the House that there are many who do not see the need for change or recognise that the academic selection system has been a failure, even with the amount of consultation that has taken place so far — and there has been much consultation. Does the Minister think that consensus can be achieved on this?


I do not underestimate the enormity and complexity of the task. I have been encouraged by an emerging consensus on the guiding principles that should be the basis of any new system, especially that of valuing all children equally. Those guiding principles centre round ending the transfer tests, the value of pupil profiles and the value of collaboration and co-operation between schools.
We have a common goal, which is to ensure that our education system is capable of providing young people with opportunities to fulfil their potential and play a full role in society. We must all work together to achieve that. I want to achieve maximum consensus, but, as Minister of Education, I will not shirk my responsibility to take firm decisions that are in the best interests of all the children.

Capital Building Programme

7. asked the Minister of Education to detail (a) how much funding will be available for the capital building programme in 2002-03; and (b) when he intends to announce the details; and to make a statement.
(AQO788/01)


Details of the next capital programme, and the funding for it, are still under consideration. However, I intend to announce the programme in March after consultation with the Committee for Education.


The Minister has recently visited at least one school with pressing capital building needs. Will he assure the House that all the other schools that he has not visited, and which are also facing severe accommodation difficulties — for example, those in my constituency of Lagan Valley — will receive fair and equitable consideration when decisions are made? How will the Minister achieve this?


We are very careful about how we move forward in all these matters, and I understand the sensitivities. However, the criteria and methodology for determining the school capital building programme are applied to all contenders. It is important that the education and library boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) and other schools authorities ensure at an early stage that their work on economic appraisals is sufficiently advanced for schools in their sectors to be considered for inclusion in the programme. The Department can consider schools only at that stage so that they can be assessed on their merits as regards educational need. That takes into account such factors as deficiencies in accommodation, the extent and condition of temporary accommodation, the ability of the school to meet the requirements of the curriculum, health and safety concerns in relation to mechanical, electrical and other areas of provision and the cost of maintaining the existing building fabric. This has to reflect the fact that the cost has to be affordable and contained within the resources available.
I have visited schools with pressing accommodation requirements. Indeed, I have visited more than one school, and I am conscious of the backlog of work that has to be caught up on. Some £500 million would be required to even begin to examine all those issues. I am under no illusions about the great difficulties faced by all school sectors. However, I can assure the House that decisions about capital support for schools and the school capital building programme are made solely on the basis of educational need. The criteria that I have outlined are the way forward, and they have been arrived at in consultation with the schools’ inspectorate, the education and library boards and the CCMS. I am also conscious of the situation in the Hillsborough area, and I am dealing with that as a matter of high importance.


I acknowledge the Minister’s detailed listing of the criteria by which he will make a decision in March. He said that the bottom line is that decisions are made solely on the basis of educational need. Does that include the application of the Programme for Government’s remit that it must also be rural and equality proofed? Does the Minister take that into consideration? If so, how will Johnny Citizen know that that has been taken on board, and in what way will it be open to discussion and constructive criticism? In other words, is there any meaning to rural proofing and the equality agenda in such decision-making?


The situation facing rural schools is particularly close to my heart. There is a responsibility on all of us to ensure that all schools are treated equally and that decisions are taken solely on the basis of educational need. Rurality of schools needs to be taken into account. I will be meeting the Committee for Education in the next couple of weeks, and we will discuss all those matters. It is important to be fair and to treat people with due respect. On my visits to schools, I have seen the great pressures that many boards of governors, schools authorities, principals, parents and teachers are under because of poor accommodation.
Accommodation is a high priority for my Department, and I have consistently fought the battle in the Executive for more resources. It is vital that we put in place proper accommodation so that we can offer the best possible environment for children to be educated in a sensible fashion. All those matters will be taken into account, but I must stress that the main criterion for the school capital building programme is educational need.


Will there be equity for schools in the controlled sector in the capital building programme for 2002-03? There is a perception in the Unionist community that it will always be second best when it comes to handing out money for schools. Will Comber High School be included in the new build, as it urgently needs repairs? However, those repairs will fill the gap only in the short term.


I shall write to the Member about Comber High School, as I do not have that information to hand. The first point is an old chestnut that comes from a minority of Members. The allegations about the distribution of the school capital building programme fund are totally untrue and unjustified — [Interruption].


It is three to one.


The school capital building programme is determined on the basis of educational need, whether that be at controlled schools, voluntary schools or in any other school sector. I heard the point being made about "three to one", so the Member who made that allegation should listen carefully. The make-up of this year’s conventional school building programme was six Catholic maintained school projects costing £25·7 million, 10 controlled school projects costing £24·1 million — including two special schools that were the top capital priorities of two education and library boards — and one grant-maintained integrated school costing £12·5 million. People who make such allegations need to examine those figures, and they need to be fair. They must stop peddling the nonsense that we will give preferential treatment to one school sector when decisions are taken about allocations to schools in the capital building programme. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our decisions on funding schools are based solely on educational need.

Noble Indicators

8. asked the Minister of Education if he has any plans to adopt the Noble indicators of multiple deprivation when assessing the needs of schools.
(AQO781/01)


I am totally committed to the application of New TSN principles to address social deprivation wherever it is found. My Department’s New TSN action plan includes an objective to improve the targeting and effectiveness of funding for schools in order to raise achievement levels. At present, I have no plans to adopt the Noble indicators when assessing schools’ needs. The needs of schools with high levels of socially disadvantaged pupils were addressed as part of my Department’s consideration of a common funding formula for schools. In that context, we examined the possibility of using Noble and other similar indicators as a means of allocating funds for social deprivation under the TSN factor in the proposed new common funding formula.
We need a robust and objective indicator, which is pupil oriented, to tackle social deprivation — principally because pupils do not always attend their nearest school. The Noble indicators are location based and, therefore, cannot be used to target resources in schools with socially deprived children in attendance. Entitlement to free school meals remains the most robust indicator of social deprivation, and that is a view widely supported by schools in the recent consultation. I have stated my willingness to keep the issue under review and to utilise more effective indicators should they become available.


I thank the Minister for his response, although I am somewhat disappointed. Does the Minister agree that every effort should be made to ensure that schoolchildren from all backgrounds receive nothing but the best, so that they can contribute positively as they move into adulthood?


I agree that every child should be given the best possible opportunity. We have formed the view that New TSN principles must be addressed through establishing free school meals entitlement in schools. However, I have not closed my mind to other ideas or suggestions, and I reiterate that I am willing to keep the issue under review and to utilise more effective indicators — [Interruption].


Order. I am afraid that the Minister’s time is up, and time is up for questions to the Minister of Education.

Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Question 17, in the name of Mrs Mary Nelis, has been transferred to the Minister of Finance and Personnel and will receive a written answer.

Care for the Elderly

1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what action has been taken to provide free long-term care for the elderly residing in nursing homes.
(AQO801/01)


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ciallaíonn reachtaíocht bheartaithe nua, a chuirfear os comhair an Tionóil go gairid, nach gcuirfear costas chúram altranais san áireamh nuair a bheidh cumas daoine díol as costas cúraim i dtithe altranais á mheasúnú ó Dheireadh Fómhair na bliana seo.
D’aontaigh an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin fosta ag a gcruinniú an 3 Bealtaine 2001 gur chóir go mbunófaí sainghrúpa idir-ranna leis na himpleachtaí agus na costais a bhainfeadh le tabhairt isteach cúraim phearsanta saor in aisce do chónaitheoirí tithe altranais agus tithe cónaithe a bhreithniú.
Proposed new legislation, which will come to the Assembly shortly, will mean that from this October the cost of nursing care will not be included when people’s ability to contribute to the cost of being cared for in nursing homes is being assessed. At a meeting on 3 May 2001, the Executive agreed that an interdepartmental expert group should be established to examine the implications and costs of introducing free personal care for residential and nursing home residents and to report its findings to the Executive. The expert group has embarked on this work and will report to the Executive as soon as possible.


Does the Minister agree that the present system discriminates against those persons who have been put upon throughout their lives by paying tax and National Insurance? Should they not expect to be entitled to free nursing and personal care in later life?


I accept that there is an anomaly in nursing care. It is supplied free of charge, as a health service, to a person in his or her own home or to a resident in a residential care home, if it is supplied externally by a trust via the community nursing service. A resident has to pay for nursing care in a nursing home only where the service is supplied as part of the overall cost.
To remove this inequitable position I propose that from this October the nursing care element of the total cost will be met from public funds, which will reduce the overall cost at an individual level. As regards personal care, I refer the Member to my first answer.


What action will the Minister take to tackle the diabolically excessive increase in charges for patients in private nursing homes? What reassurance will she give to such patients?


This is an interesting supplementary question to draw out the idea of my proposals for free long-term care for the elderly. I would not have thought that the present tariffs were exactly in line with that. The measures I am proposing aim to reduce the overall cost of care to those in nursing homes by removing the nursing care element. However, the amount that any individual pays is a matter between them and the homes in which they reside.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. My question was answered in the reply given to Mr Armstrong’s supplementary question.


I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the lack of care provided by the Southern Health and Social Services Board, where elderly people and disabled children have had their services withdrawn due to financial restrictions. Many elderly people have been left without any care, and care workers have been made unemployed. In the context of providing care, will the Minister indicate what action she can take to assist the board and the constituent trusts to provide care equal to that given in every other part of the Six Counties?


A huge number of Members asked to put supplementaries to the Minister on this question. It appears, however, that the supplementaries are somewhat tangential to the subject of the question. I must ask Members to stick to the original question. It is difficult enough when a large number of Members ask for supplementaries, but it is impossible to make a proper judgement when at least half of them are about something else. I must, therefore, move on.

Acute Services in Tyrone County Hospital

2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety whether there has been any diminution of acute services in Tyrone County Hospital since July 2001.
(AQO778/01)


Dearbhaíodh domh gur ghlac Bord an Iarthair agus Iontaobhas Speirín, Tír na Lochanna cibé céimeanna is gá le próifíl géarsheirbhísí ag Ospidéal Chontae Thír Eoghain a choinneáil.
Mar shampla, leithroinn an bord £200,000 breise go hathfhillteach le seirbhísí altranais ag Ospidéal Chontae Thír Eoghain agus na hÉirne a choinneáil; tugadh fostaíocht bhuan do roinnt foirne sealadaí; agus tá an tIontaobhas ag infheistiú £500,000 breise le seirbhísí a choinneáil, lena n-áirítear foireann bhreise in ainéistic, i bpéidiatric agus i raideolaíocht.
I have been assured that the Western Board and the Sperrin Lakeland Health and Social Care Trust have taken such steps as are necessary to sustain the profile of acute services at Tyrone County Hospital. For example, the board has committed an extra £200,000 recurrently to sustaining nursing services at the Tyrone County Hospital and the Erne Hospital. A number of temporary staff have been made permanent, and the trust is investing an extra £500,000 to sustain services, which include the support of additional staff in anaesthesiology, paediatrics and radiology.


I find the Minister’s answer most interesting. It does not explain why, at the joint meeting of Fermanagh and Omagh district councils on Wednesday last week, the chief executive of the Sperrin Lakeland Health and Social Care Trust indicated that the Hayes Report would be implemented and that the intention was that Tyrone County Hospital would be run down. Will the Minister assure us that no one from her Department is advising him that that is the case while she is telling us otherwise?


First, the Member’s question was about a diminution of acute services in Tyrone County Hospital since July 2001, and I had hoped that the supplementary question would bear some relation to that.
Secondly, under no circumstances has anyone given any indication other than that which I have reiterated here. After discussion in the Executive, proposals will be put out for consultation, an equality impact assessment will be carried out, and at that point during 2002 final decisions will be made. No decisions have been taken at this point.


At the risk of being tangential, and rather than allow the Minister to run around in circles, I will ask if she is aware that when services within Sperrin Lakeland Health and Social Care Trust have been transferred from the Tyrone County Hospital in the past, the uptake has not reflected that expected in the conglomeration of the two services. Patients are voting with their feet, and in the Tyrone County Hospital side they are moving to another trust area for service.


Patients may vote with their feet, their cars, their buses or any other method of transport to avail of services. That is their right and their choice. However, the boards and trusts continually review their services to reflect demand, and they occasionally reconfigure services according to that demand. I have received an assurance from the trust that any sort of reconfiguration or realignment that takes place between winter and summer, or at any stage, to reflect demand will have no negative impact on patient safety or quality of care.
The board and the trust assure me that no distinction is made when considering the sustainability of the profiles in both hospitals pending the outcome of the acute hospitals review. That is what they have been asked to do, and they assure me that they are doing it.


Does the Minister stand by the earlier commitment that the "bridge to the future" concept still pertains, so that the Tyrone County Hospital will not suffer a meltdown in acute services during the limbo period before a strategic decision is made by management? When does the Minister intend to pay an official visit to the Tyrone County Hospital in Omagh to meet the medical and nursing staff, who would appreciate such a visit, no doubt?


When I made an official visit to hospitals in Omagh and Enniskillen in December, the staff at both hospitals told me that they greatly appreciated my visit.
On sustaining services and profiles at the hospitals pending final decisions in 2002, officials are meeting senior officers at the Western Board and the Sperrin Lakeland Trust on a regular basis. I am satisfied that the board and the trust are taking the steps necessary to secure services at both the Tyrone County and Erne Hospital sites. I reiterate that I have received assurances from the board and the trust that no distinction is being made when considering the sustainability of the profiles at those hospitals.

Junior Hospital Doctors’ Working Hours

3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline (a) the average number of hours worked by junior hospital doctors in the past year; (b) if this has improved since the previous year; and (c) any strategies she is adopting to deal with this issue.
(AQO798/01)


Tá grúpa feidhmithe (ISG) bunaithe ag mo Roinn le cuidiú le hiontaobhais cloí leis na teorainneacha ar uaireanta oibre agus riachtanais scíthe an réitigh nua d’uaireanta dochtúirí sóisearacha. Ó Lúnasa 2001 tá ISG ag obair le hiontaobhais agus le boird leis an réiteach nua a sholáthar agus le caighdeáin chóiríochta agus lónadóireachta a fheabhsú.
Information on the average number of hours worked by junior doctors in the past year is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. My Department has established an implementation support group (ISG) to assist trusts to achieve compliance with the limits on hours of work and rest requirements in the new deal on junior doctors’ hours.
Since August 2001, the ISG has been working with trusts and boards to deliver the new deal and improve accommodation and catering standards. Key members of the ISG are engaged in an intensive round of visits to the trusts to identify problems and to check that trusts have given sufficient priority to achieving the new deal. They are also assisting trusts by spreading good practice, which will help trusts to achieve compliance through facilitating changes in doctors’ working patterns and practices and by instituting skill-mix initiatives where appropriate. The key priority for this year is to ensure that full compliance with new deal is achieved for all pre-registration house officer posts by August 2002.


I thank the Minister for her answer, but the underlying problem of the failure to train enough doctors must be addressed urgently. The increase in the number of places in universities’ medical schools is pitifully inadequate; junior doctors must therefore work long hours because there are not enough of them. That makes the profession increasingly unattractive to young people.


I agree with the Member’s comments about the number of people who have been trained in the past. I have said on many occasions that the funding failures of the past meant that money which should have been put into the system for health and social services was taken out of it. In addition, money and time were not invested in training, equipment and services for the community and its hospitals.
That has left the Department without the flexibility and capacity that it needs. I concur with the Member’s concerns about the impact that that has on junior doctors. I have met with junior doctors’ representatives. The ISG is working to tackle the necessary arrangements. The Department is undertaking a major workforce planning exercise in order to ensure that the necessary investments in training for the future are made now.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Has the Minister met with junior doctors and listened to their concerns?


As I have said, I have met with junior doctors’ representatives. I am closely monitoring the progress of the work of the ISG. The group is paying particular attention to the introduction of a range of initiatives that will enhance support for junior doctors and will reduce or eliminate inappropriate tasks being carried out by them. The junior doctors met with the Chief Medical Officer at the end of last year. They have frequent meetings at official level, one of which is scheduled for later this week. They have representation on the ISG, which meets quarterly. Liaison meetings with the chairperson of the group take place between meetings of the entire group.


When the Minister is considerate enough to give an answer in not one but two languages, I request that Members ensure that their supplementary questions do not ask the previous question again. The Minister did not answer in Ulster Scots. However, I hope that, when I call Mr Shannon to put his question, it will not be a repetition.


I shall put my question to the Minister in English. Will the Minister acknowledge that junior doctors, and indeed all doctors, work excessive hours? How many have needed time off due to overwork and stress? Is working those long hours against the trusts’ guidelines?


I share the Member’s concerns. A recent survey of all trusts and boards indicated that 70% of junior doctors are working in posts that are non-compliant with the hours and rest requirements of the new deal. That is why I have made certain that the work of the implementation support group, and any other work that can be done, will be done in order to meet those requirements. I commend the work of all of those who are working hard to ensure that arrangements are those that junior doctors and others should expect. This year’s key priority is that full compliance with the new deal is achieved for all pre-registration house officer posts by August.

Ovarian Cancer Research Programme

4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to make a statement on the ovarian cancer research programme announced recently.
(AQO806/01)


Tagraíonn an fógra a rinneadh le gairid ar thaighde ailse ubhagáin do thriail chomhoibritheach ar scagadh le haghaidh ailse ubhagáin a bhfuiltear ag tabhairt fúithi in Ospidéal Chathair Bhéal Feirste agus in ionaid ar fud Sasana, na hAlban agus na Breataine Bige. Mairfidh an triail 10 mbliana ,agus féachfaidh sí lena léiriú go deimhneach an féidir le scagadh le haghaidh ailse ubhagáin beo a shábháil.
The recent announcement on ovarian cancer research refers to a collaboration trial of ovarian cancer screening, which is being undertaken at Belfast City Hospital and at centres throughout England, Scotland and Wales. The trial will run for 10 years. It seeks to show definitively whether screening for ovarian cancer can save lives.


I thank the Minister for her answer. What does she hope to achieve from the trial?


If the Minister wishes to elaborate, I will happily give her the opportunity to do so, but she has given a clear answer about the purpose of the trial.


On a point of order, Mr Speaker.


I do not take points of order during ministerial questions.


I wanted to ask what the Minister hopes to achieve from the trial.


I heard the question. I also heard the answer, and I think that I have some knowledge of those things.
Minister, you may elaborate if you wish, although you should not feel compelled to do so.


As I said, the trial seeks to show definitively whether screening for ovarian cancer can save lives. Methods to detect ovarian cancer early have been developed, and the trial will determine how effective the screening tests are. It will be 2012 before final conclusions can be drawn. The importance of the trial lies in the fact that ovarian cancer is the fourth commonest cause of death from cancer among women here.

Investing for Health

5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety when she will publish the implementation plan for the ‘Investing for Health’ Report.
(AQO780/01)


Tá súil agam an straitéis ‘Infheistíocht do Shláinte’ a fhoilsiú an mhí seo chugainn.
I hope to publish the ‘Investing for Health’ strategy next month.


It was such a short answer that I almost did not hear what the Minister said.


Perhaps if the House were a little quieter and more attentive to the Minister, the Member would have a chance to hear the Minister’s concise answer.


You are right, Mr Speaker.
Does the Minister agree that when targets are set, we expect action? Page 31 of the first Programme for Government, published in February 2001, stated that the public consultation for the ‘Investing for Health’ strategy was to be completed, and that by September 2001 an implementation plan was to be published. It is now February 2002, and we are still no further forward. With such dragging of feet, is it any wonder that the Health Service is in its current state?


The consultation period was to end on 10 April 2001. However, because of difficulties in organising consultation events in rural areas as a result of foot-and-mouth disease, it was decided to extend the consultation period until 31 May. Even I am not responsible for foot-and-mouth disease. In the last plenary debate before the Christmas recess, one Member suggested that I was almost responsible for the Ulster fry and the amount that people in Ireland drink. However, to hold me responsible for foot-and-mouth disease is to take a step too far.
In addition, the ministerial group on public health agreed that a feedback conference would form an integral part of the consultation process, as that would inform respondents about the outcomes of the consultation and provide a final opportunity for comment. Having extended the consultation period until 31 May, it was not then feasible, if community representatives were to be included, to hold that conference during the summer. The conference was eventually held on 5 October.
The development of the strategy has since involved the co-ordination of input from all Departments, and the consideration of the draft strategy by a quality assurance group. As the Member knows, I chair the ministerial group on public health. Representatives on that group also include senior officials from every Executive Department. It will consider the final draft of the strategy at its meeting on Wednesday before submitting it to the Executive for approval.


I am sure that the Minister’s report ‘Investing for Health’ will refer to measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccinations. Serious complications are associated with those diseases, and children’s health must be paramount. We understand the uncertainty of many parents about the safety of the MMR vaccine. Does the Minister agree that overwhelming evidence and research, including that from the World Health Organization, shows that MMR — [Interruption].


Order. If Members are trying to ask a supplementary question, they should try to find one that is at least relevant to the substantial question. The whole House accepts that the Chairperson’s question is important. However, the connection with the substantive question is tenuous to say the least. It would be unfair of me to permit the Member to continue.


Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Níl Ulster Scots ná Ullans agam, ach bainfidh mé triail as an Ghaeilge. An féidir leis an Aire insint dúinn cá mhéad ama a mheastar a bhéas riachtanach leis an phlean seo a chur i bhfeidhm?
After the consultation on the report and its finalisation, will the Minister indicate what timescale is involved in the implementation of the ‘Investing for Health’ plan?


Consultation was covered in my response to Mr McCarthy’s question. The implementation strategy will have several stages, but we see it as the future way of working. For it to succeed, there must be an effective partnership at every level. For the foreseeable future the ministerial group on public health will work with a variety of Departments to ensure that health factors are given due consideration in all areas of responsibility. In addition, the four health and social services boards will also lead local ‘Investing for Health’ partnerships to identify opportunities to improve the health of the people in their area by addressing the social, cultural, economic and environmental determinants of health. They will develop long-term, local, cross-sectoral health improvement plans, again with short-term and longer-term targets. In the statutory sector, district councils, the Housing Executive, education and library boards, and health and social services trusts will all be included in those partnerships. Beyond those core members, the composition of the partnerships will be determined locally and is likely to evolve over time. The idea behind that is that in future the work of the strategy will become an integral part of the planning and outworking of policy in all areas — not only in health.
Some implementation is immediate. I will shortly announce the community grants programme. Some will take slightly longer; the setting up of local partnerships will take place in the coming months. The most important part will be to establish a new way of working, in keeping with the Executive’s Programme for Government. For the foreseeable future interim targets will be regularly monitored.

Care of Special-School Leavers

6. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to detail any discussions she has had with the Department of Education regarding the care of young people leaving schools such as Hillcroft Special School, Newtownabbey, at the age of 19.
(AQO784/01)


Ní raibh aon phlé agam leis an Roinn Oideachas faoin ábhar seo.
Tá na socruithe le freastal ar riachtanais chúram sláinte daoine óga a fhágann scoileanna speisialta leagtha amach in alt 5 den Acht Daoine Míchumasacha (Tuaisceart Éireann) 1989. Soláthraíonn ‘Cód Cleachtais d’Aithint agus do Mheasúnú Riachtanas Speisialta Oideachas’ treoir faoi conas is cóir na socruithe a dhéanamh.
I have had no discussion with the Department of Education on that matter. Arrangements for meeting the continuing healthcare needs of young people leaving special schools are set out in section 5 of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. The Department of Education’s code of practice for the identification and assessment of special educational needs provides guidance on how such arrangements should be made. It is for the relevant education and library board to identify those leaving special schools and to inform the appropriate health and social services trust. In turn, the trust is responsible for assessing need and arranging for the necessary services to be provided.


I thank the Minister for her reply, which focused with procedures but dealt very little with the individuals who are clearly in need. Will she agree that there is a significant underprovision of places in day care for adults with learning disabilities? That is compounded by the difficulties of managing centres with increasing numbers of elderly people as well as young adults. Is she aware that approximately 40 minutes ago in the Chamber, the Minister of Education gave an undertaking that education and library boards might offer facilities to health and social services trusts outside school hours, subject to local agreement? If so, will she follow up that ministerial initiative and ensure that funds are provided to community health and social services trusts to enable the use of school facilities to provide for adults whose age excludes them from the remit of special schools?


I am aware of the pressure on statutory day care facilities, particularly as a result of the factors that the Member raised, and also because of the increasing number of people with severe disabilities who are unable to access alternative day facilities.
It is for the health and social services boards and trusts to assess need and provide the appropriate range and volume of services. That is why I outlined the arrangements in my opening answer. Those arrangements are between the education and library boards and the health and social services boards and trusts, and I am certain that the boards and trusts will wish to follow up any suggestion of facilities that might be made available. That raises the question of whether that would automatically mean that they could provide appropriate facilities or that there would be funding available for them. They need to examine all that.
It is for the relevant boards and trusts to inform themselves of the needs of those leaving special schools in their areas and to plan to meet those needs. I understand that funding is needed for day care and for a range of other health and social services, and I will examine that with a view to allocating additional funding in 2002-03. I will announce my decisions in due course.


Does the Minister agree that all young people leaving special education should be entitled to a full-time place at an adult facility or day centre in order to continue to avail of the opportunities that were created for them at the special school? I am thinking, in particular, of the Riverside School in Antrim. It has a high reputation, but it cannot send its pupils, on leaving, to the local day centre, which is advising in advance that it will be unable to admit them.


I am aware of several schools; those mentioned are both in the Homefirst Community Health and Social Services Trust area. That trust is planning how best to meet the needs of those who they know are leaving special schools in the area. Those needs include social work support, day care, respite care and a challenging-behaviour service. As I said in answer to the previous supplementary question, the availability of resources is an issue, and I will consider it.
The Homefirst Community Health and Social Services Trust advises me that it has identified those young people who will transfer to adult services, and it is planning to meet their needs.


Order. The time for questions to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is up.

Finance and Personnel

The Minister of Finance and Personnel makes another appearance. Even after this, his work will not be over.
I wish to inform the House that question 6, in the name of Mr Gibson, has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer. Question 12, in the name of Mr McGrady, has been withdrawn and no longer requires an answer.

Peace II Funding

1. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what measures are in place to ensure that Peace II funding is distributed equitably across all sections of the community.
(AQO823/01)


All areas, groups and sectors will have an equal opportunity to access Peace II funding. Equality of opportunity and balanced intervention are among several horizontal principles that govern the way in which the Peace II programme will be implemented. Furthermore, in accordance with section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Special EU Programmes Body has a responsibility to promote equality of opportunity.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)


That being the case, perhaps the Minister will explain the situation in Lisburn. Funding was not distributed equally the last time: the Protestant community did not get its fair allocation. The new board does not reflect the balance in the community. Its chairperson and deputy chairperson are Roman Catholic, although the community is 70% Protestant. Coming from a background of unfair allocations, how can we expect equity and equality in the community? How does the Minister expect the public to have any confidence in the process?


Members will appreciate that I did not have any responsibility for the matters that the Member seems to be pointing to.
However, I would be very concerned if there were any substantial evidence to back up the Member’s remarks. If he has any such evidence, he should make it available to me. In my initial response, I indicated that the Executive have a clear, firm and explicit obligation to respect all equality requirements when allocating EU Peace II programme funds. That applies to EU funds and to all expenditure for which the Executive are responsible, and it applies across the board when allocating any form of public funding. Again, without evidence that would enable me to make a judgement, it is impossible for me to answer the question.


How will Peace II resources be targeted?


Peace II resources will be targeted on areas, sectors and groups that have been adversely affected by the conflict over the past 30 years. Those will include areas that were disadvantaged by the conflict, interface areas, victims and their families, ex-prisoners and their families, young people, women, older workers, and sectors or activities in business, the arts and sports that have been adversely affected by the conflict.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. How does the Minister expect Peace II funding to be distributed equitably, given that it is based on need — rather than religion, as the DUP may suggest — and given that district council areas west of the River Bann have seen a decrease in the allocation of Peace II funding?


I have made it clear that funds are allocated on the basis of equality with due respect to the requirements set out in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Member will be aware — and members of the Committee for Finance and Personnel will be even more aware — of the considerable amount of consultation and discussion that has taken place on the basis on which allocations would be made, for example, to local strategic partnerships in the current round of Peace II funding allocations. The indicators were agreed by the Committee for Finance and Personnel and the Executive, which therefore includes the Ministers from the Member’s party.

Official Cars

2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail the funding arrangements in place for the use of official cars by Ministers in the Executive.
(AQO808/01)


The Department of Finance and Personnel funds the provision of official transport for 10 of the 14 Ministers. Different funding arrangements apply to the transport for the First Minister and the Ministers for Regional Development, Education and Health, Social Services and Public Safety.


I thank the Minister for his reply. Like the rest of us, I am sure that the Minister is desirous of keeping down the cost of official transportation for Ministers. Is he satisfied that the most cost-effective arrangements are in place, particularly bearing in mind the relative cost of using official chauffeurs and contracted outside firms?


I am satisfied that that is the case. A comparison of the costs of the alternative arrangements for providing official transport concluded that there were substantial savings — £300,000 in a full year — to be had from maintaining an in-house service as opposed to a contracted service. The average cost per hour for in-house provision was found to be approximately £7 less than the service provided by a contractor.

Green Purchasing Policies

3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to make a statement on the Executive’s plans to implement green purchasing policies throughout Government Departments.
(AQO771/01)


The procurement review team’s report, which has been subject to public consultation, includes recommendations aimed at ensuring that environmental issues are integrated into public procurement policy. The contributions to the consultation exercise are being considered together with the team’s recommendations, and I will bring forward policy proposals to the Executive in due course.


Will the Minister outline the environmental policy currently operated by the Department?


Each Department is responsible for examining the environmental impact of its activities, including procurement, as set out in the Northern Ireland Civil Service policy statement on green housekeeping. In my Department, where it is intended that the Government Purchasing Agency (GPA) should purchase goods or services specifically mentioned in the policy document, the appropriate environmental criteria are included in contract documentation. In addition, the Government Purchasing Agency tender documentation encourages suppliers to adopt positive environmental policies.


The Minister will be aware that great efforts are being made by his ministerial Colleague Mr Foster, and by district councils, to promote waste minimisation, recycling and so on. Is the Minister aware that the market for recycled products is one of the concerns as to the viability of recycling? In the interests of having a cross-cutting policy, would it not be circumspect for the Assembly, and government in general, to adopt a policy of using recycled paper and other materials?


I take on board the points that Mr Hussey has made. Where Departments and Government agencies are not respecting policy set down in the guidelines in the Northern Ireland Civil Service green housekeeping document, I would be anxious to ensure that henceforth they do.


Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In the implementation of purchasing policies for Government Departments, has the Minister considered credit unions, as well as banks, with regard to financial arrangements within the Assembly?


The question strays outside the parameters of the original issue, which was related to public procurement. Nonetheless, I am sympathetic to the credit union movement, and where it can be facilitated by Government finances, I am sure that the matter will receive sympathetic consideration.

Noble Indicators

4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline whether the Noble indicators of multiple deprivation have been rural and TSN-proofed before being used for allocating resources and EU funds.
(AQO770/01)


The Noble research was designed to measure deprivation in urban and rural areas by selecting indicators that are applicable to both. The measures will inform the spatial targeting of programmes and will contribute to the application of targeting social need throughout government. The indicators that make up the measures, and the measures themselves, were agreed by all members of the Executive — including the two Ministers from Mr Molloy’s party — prior to the publication of the report in July 2001.


Ceist uimhir a ceathair. First, I must correct something that the Minister said previously. The Committee for Finance and Personnel did not agree the allocations — in fact, the Committee opposed the allocations because they were linked not only to the Noble indicators but also to population. How does the Minister propose to target social need, particularly west of the Bann — an area that has been depopulated as a result of the role of successive British Governments and Unionist regimes? Currently, population is used as a measure, along with the Noble indicators, which do not target social need.
How does he explain the exclusion of large areas that were targeted by Noble as being deprived? The allocations to the district partnership boards have been reduced by £1 million.


I said earlier that there was widespread consultation on the Noble indicators, and that the Committee was involved in that consultation. It received presentations from officials in my Department. I will examine Hansard, and if I was inaccurate, I will ensure that that is corrected. I stressed that agreement on the use of the indicators was reached in the Executive, which includes two Ministers from the Member’s party. I reiterate that point, because in an earlier debate Mr McGrady raised the matter of collective responsibility. We need to ensure that collective responsibility for Executive decisions is fully respected.
The development of the Noble indicators was a complex process. The index includes all the factors related to deprivation, and, appropriately, it relates those factors to the size of the population of an area. The allocations are then made on the basis of the indicators that are provided for each district council area. There has been concern about the matter, but the Member can receive again, through his Committee, a detailed presentation of all the issues related to the Noble indicators, if he and his Committee so wish. All Members are invited to gain information on how the indicators and the factors related to them were arrived at, and on their application.


Further to that answer, if Departments are using the Noble indicators of multiple deprivation in spending reviews and to influence decisions, why is the Minister of Education using different indicators in spending programmes? Does the Minister agree that the indicators should have been subject to a full, open debate in the House, and will he give a commitment to have such a debate?


I cannot possibly answer the first part of the Member’s question. It must be directed to the Minister identified in the question.


On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.


No points of order are allowed.


The Member, in his question, asked me to speak on behalf of the Minister of Education about the issues that he raised. I cannot do that.
As I said before, the Noble indicators were developed and agreed as the basis upon which the allocations under Peace II programmes would be made. It is not possible to reopen the basis upon which those allocations are made. As I said in my previous response, Members can become fully informed about all the factors related to deprivation that inform the development of the Noble indicators. That would at least help Members to understand that, as a result of the widespread consultation, there seems to have been wide acceptance of the weighting of all those factors, in rural and urban areas.
I recognise that the way in which they are working out seems to cause concern. However, if Members wish to be as fully informed as possible on what has gone into making these indicators up, I will be only too happy to make that information available from my Department.

European Moneys

5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether European moneys have been returned to Brussels as a result of underspend and whether these moneys would be redirected to areas in need.
(AQO785/01)


No European money has been returned to the Commission as a result of underspending from the structural funds programmes for Northern Ireland. Funds in structural funds programmes can be redirected only within the guidelines and regulations laid down by the European Commission.


I thank the Minister for that response. I would like an explanation, therefore, of the numerous occasions on which the Budget and the Supplementary Estimates for Peace and Reconciliation funding — Peace I — have been reduced. By how much has that been reduced across all Departments? Can the Minister give us guarantees that that money will not go back to Brussels? Can it be used to bridge the gap between Peace I and Peace II? It was my understanding that if moneys were not spent by the end of a certain period, which was last December, they would go back.


I can assure the Member that it is expected that all moneys related to Peace I will be spent as planned. It is in the nature of the way in which funding is drawn down from Europe that money is drawn down against expenditure and, therefore, that there is no question of a return. However, I want to underline that it is anticipated that all of the planned expenditure will take place.


What monitoring arrangements are in place to ensure that underspent money is directed where it is needed, particularly to areas such as Strabane and west Tyrone, which lost out in Peace II funding?


The treatment of structural funds expenditure is based on the principle that receipts from the European Community should be managed, disbursed and monitored in exactly the same way, and using the same systems, as our own public expenditure. The basic principles of Government accounting apply to European Community receipts. In Northern Ireland the community structural fund monitoring committee has an overarching role across our structural funds programmes to ensure effective implementation and value for money.

Absenteeism Levels

7. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to explain (a) why administrative officers’ absenteeism at 10% should be almost 3% higher than the levels for civil servant grades above and below that grade; and (b) what action is being taken to manage such high absenteeism levels.
(AQO820/01)


The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) has developed robust statistics to help Departments identify underlying trends and areas for more in-depth analysis by age, grade and gender. For example, those statistics revealed that the female absence rate is twice as high as the male one, and that has an impact on absenteeism at the level of administrative officer, which is predominately female. A copy of the report ‘Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Northern Ireland Departments, 2000-01’ by NISRA is available in the Assembly Library.
My Department also assists other Departments in tackling absenteeism through a range of corporate initiatives, including the development of a web site called ‘Attendance Matters’ for staff and managers. Service-wide seminars and workshops on managing attendance, as well as an awareness leaflet on support and early-return mechanisms, are available to Northern Ireland Civil Service staff. However, in that context it is important to bear in mind that approximately 80% of all lost working days were supported by a doctor’s certificate.


I welcome the news that the Minister is taking the matter seriously, that web sites are being developed and that additional training is being provided. Does the Minister agree that such high levels of absenteeism are unacceptable? They are almost three times higher than those in the private sector, as illustrated in a recent Confederation of British Industry (CBI) survey. Furthermore, will he confirm that high levels of absenteeism place additional burdens and stresses on those members of the Civil Service who are at work serving the general public?


This is an issue that must be approached sympathetically. It is notoriously difficult to carry out meaningful comparisons with other organisations, in both the public and the private sectors, for a variety of reasons. Sick absence rates are often calculated on a different basis and do not allow for factors such as the gender and age profile or the volume of part-time working to be taken into account, all of which have been shown to have an impact on absenteeism rates. Similarly, a recent CBI survey identified that company size is a key determinant of absence rates, with the smallest firms having a sick absence rate of approximately 40% less than the largest ones.
I can assure the Member that Departments are not at all complacent about this. As he acknowledged in his question, action is being taken to address some of the areas in which absenteeism is at its highest.

Magherafelt Bypass

8. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel if he will give an undertaking to provide adequate finances to the Department for Regional Development in order to secure the Magherafelt bypass.
(AQO774/01)


I wonder whether I should be flattered by the amount of authority that the Member’s question seems to invest in me with respect to funding for the bypass at Magherafelt. Funding of Roads Service capital schemes and prioritising spending of the capital budget for roads are matters for the Minister for Regional Development in the first instance, and not for the Minister of Finance and Personnel. Any request by a Minister for additional funding is a matter for consideration by the Minister of Finance and Personnel and, indeed, the whole Executive.


The Minister should not flatter himself too much. He should understand that the roads’ infrastructure throughout the Province is in a state of grave neglect. The Executive must give higher priority to the Department for Regional Development when funds are being allocated to enable schemes such as the Magherafelt bypass to become a reality. It has been in the 15-year programme for many years. I am not asking the Minister in any way to suggest which road or scheme should have higher priority, but the allocations of money made by his Department to the Department for Regional Development are vital to getting this road built.


The Member may appreciate that I am too humble a person to flatter myself. I was suggesting that he might be flattering me.


What would he do that for?


The Member better ask him. He is his party leader. Perhaps Dr McCrea is thinking about changing his mind on some issues.
However long a particular proposal or scheme is in the pipeline, ultimately the responsibility for making the case for it has to fall to the Minister responsible. Perhaps the question in the first instance might have been better directed to the Minister for Regional Development, who, I understand, is still a Colleague of the Member.

Peace II Programme

9. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail the number of applications received under measure 2.1 of the Peace II European Support Programme; and to make a statement on the success of the online completion of applications.
(AQO811/01)


Applications to this measure are ongoing. To date, 25 have been formally submitted, of which 13 were submitted online and 12 manually. A further 55 online applications have been initiated under this measure.
The application form is in two parts. Part A can be completed either online or manually, and part B must be completed manually. The online application process is working well, with some 3,900 applications initiated. A total of 1,603 applications have been submitted formally for building sustainable prosperity and Peace II, of which 1,014 are for Peace II.


Can the Minister say if there were any drawbacks for online applications because of the closing date in December? Were any communities hindered?


There were no inhibitions or hindrances to applicants. There was heavy online traffic towards the closing date for receipt of applications, which made it difficult to gain access. However, steps have been taken to address that problem, and no applicants have been inhibited from making an appropriate application.


There was some concern about community organisations not having access to the Internet. Can the Minister assure the House that that was not a problem and that it did not affect those who wished to apply using the traditional method?


Applications can be made in the traditional way. The 12 paper applications referred to in my main reply were submitted using the traditional method, and both methods of application were equally acceptable.

NHS Funding

10. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel, in view of the underspend in the NHS in the last financial year, to outline what mechanisms are in place to ensure that additional departmental budget allocations are spent in-year.
(AQO809/01)


The Executive are determined to ensure that resources, once allocated, are spent where they are most needed. That is achieved through the in-year monitoring process, where spending is monitored by Departments with significant underspends — actual or forecast — being notified to the Department of Finance and Personnel on four specified occasions. At each point any spare capacity is reallocated, at the discretion of the Executive, to other pressures that may have arisen in other spending programmes.


Time is up. The Minister will reply in writing to any supplementary questions.
We will resume the debate — [Interruption].


On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
In his reply, the Minister said that the Noble indices were being used to target and spend departmental moneys. The Minister of Education is not using the Noble indicators as a way of spending departmental moneys, and that issue needs to be raised.
On a further point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister of Education said that he had consulted widely before coming to the conclusion that the Nobel indices were the best way of indicating social deprivation. The House has not had a chance to debate those issues, even though there has been wide consultation outside the House.


That is not a matter for the Minister of Finance and Personnel but rather for the Minister of Education. I strongly suggest that you take up the matter with the relevant Minister.


On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is supposed to be collective responsibility in the Executive. We are supposed to have spending programmes that run through all the Departments. That cannot happen if each Minister is using different indices to tackle social deprivation.


I repeat: take the matter up with the relevant Minister.
Supply Resolutions: Spring Supplementary Estimates (2001-02) and Vote on Account (2002-03)

Education

Mr Speaker: I wish to advise Members that question 9, in the name of Mr John Kelly, has been transferred to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and will receive a written answer. I do not see Ms Lewsley in her place, so I call Mr Ken Robinson.

Mr Ken Robinson: Question 1.

Mr Speaker: That takes cross-community co-operation a bit further than is legitimate in the Chamber.

Salary Differentials

Mr Ken Robinson: 2. asked the Minister of Education what steps he is taking to ensure that salary differentials continue to exist for vice-principals and principals of schools following the introduction of threshold payments for teachers.
(AQO790/01)

Mr Martin McGuinness: The agreement negotiated last year between management and teachers on the teachers’ salaries and conditions of service committee recognises that there should be appropriate salary differentials. Under that agreement, a vice-principal’s salary range starts at a point above the salary of the highest-paid teacher in the school. In turn, the first point on the principal’s salary range must be higher than the top point of the vice-principal’s salary range.
The problem lies in reaching agreement on appropriate differentials, given the differences between schools in management structures, job weights and existing pay differentials. The employing authorities and my Department have been working hard on guidance for boards of governors on the pay arrangements for principals and vice-principals. Although this has not been a straightforward task, it is expected that the guidance will issue very shortly. Any consequential pay changes for principals and vice-principals will be backdated to 1 September 2000.

Mr Ken Robinson: Does the Minister agree that the people who have held our schools and community together over the past 30 years, when others were hell-bent on destruction, now deserve to see a tangible reward for their loyalty and dedication? Also, does the Minister consider it proper when a teacher at the top of her scale is promoted to the post of vice-principal and, as a consequence, is £500 less well off, or when two vice-principals now find themselves on a salary £1,500 lower than the highest-paid teacher in their school, or, indeed, when a teaching principal who worked in the evenings and over the weekends to ensure that his colleagues received their threshold increase has yet to be told when his differential will be restored?

Mr Martin McGuinness: When the pay agreement was reached last year, priority was given to putting in place the arrangements for assessing eligible teachers and paying salary increases to those assessed as meeting the standards. Principals, assessors and the employing authorities have done an excellent job in completing almost all the assessments, and some 70% of successful teachers have now been paid. The new arrangement for vice-principals has not yet been implemented because of the priority given to threshold assessments. When it is implemented shortly, all vice-principals will receive more than their teachers, and the awards will be backdated to the same date as that applying to teachers.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the Minister instigate an independent inquiry into teachers’ pay and conditions?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I am still considering that matter. I have received further representations from teachers, and I expect to announce my decision soon.

Care of Young People

Mr David Ford: 3. asked the Minister of Education to detail any discussions he has had with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety regarding the care of young people leaving schools such as Hillcroft Special School, Newtownabbey, at the age of 19.
(AQO783/01)

Mr Martin McGuinness: I personally have not had discussions with my Colleague, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, on this issue. However, the procedures are as follows. The Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 requires education and library boards to refer pupils in special schools to the relevant health and social services trust at age 14 for an opinion as to whether they come within the scope of the Act and are, therefore, likely to require further care when they leave school. The special education legislation imposes certain duties on boards regarding transition planning. My Department’s code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs provides further advice on the process. Boards are required to inform trusts about a young person leaving special school up to a year in advance.

Mr David Ford: I thank the Minister for his response on the procedures. The issue is clearly of major concern and another area was highlighted in the press at the weekend.
Before the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, special schools under the control of health and social services boards appear to have had much greater co-ordination with sheltered workshops and adult centres than they have now. Is it acceptable that, because of difficulties with provision, young people are thrown out of the only available care for them in special schools before alternative care is provided?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Education and library boards are required to notify health and social services boards and trusts for an opinion on whether young people in special schools who reach the age of 14 are disabled according to the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 and may, therefore, require further care on leaving school. That happens at least two years, but more commonly five years, before such young people leave school. I cannot see any merit in earlier notification, although we are all responsible for examining those issues.
Health and social services trusts may wish to approach the education and library boards about that specific problem to see if opportunities exist for the use of school facilities out of school hours. For example, special schools’ assembly halls could be used for sports or drama activities, specialist rooms could be used for home economics, art, craft and technology, and it might be possible to use hydrotherapy pools, if they were available. That would, of course, be subject to agreement between the trust, the board and the school.

Mr Francie Molloy: What measures are being taken to prepare young people in special schools for life after school at the age of 19?

Mr Martin McGuinness: The education and library boards are required to prepare a transition plan at the first annual review of the statement of special educational needs after a young person reaches the age of 14, and a transition plan is designed to facilitate a satisfactory transition from childhood to adulthood. It contains the arrangements that a board considers appropriate for a young person who is aged between 14 and 19, including special educational provision and any other necessary provision such as suitable accommodation, leisure activities and employment.

Mr Speaker: I do not see Mr Kennedy in his place, so I call Mr Mick Murphy.

Post-Primary Provision

Mr Mick Murphy: 5. asked the Minister of Education what is the core issue in the current debate on post- primary provision; and to make a statement.
(AQO814/01)

Mr Martin McGuinness: The core issue in the current debate is academic selection. The weaknesses of the current selective arrangements were evidenced by the research undertaken by Prof Gallagher, Prof Smith, Save the Children and Prof Gardiner. The submissions to the review body made it clear that the public supports change, and the Assembly endorsed the Committee for Education’s conclusion that change is necessary and appropriate. The status quo is not an option.
There is widespread demand for the abolition of the 11-plus test, but it important to realise that that cannot take place unless academic selection is also abolished. I want to encourage debate on the issue, and for that reason I have extended the consultation period.

Mr Mick Murphy: As the Minister knows, many children were traumatised over the weekend when the 11-plus results were issued, and I for one look forward to the end of this cruel scheme. Will the Minister comment on this year’s transfer test results?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I am sure that all pupils who sat the tests did their best, and I offer my congratulations to all pupils who are in the final year of their primary education. After the test results, there will be rejoicing in many families, but it is important to remember that there will be great disappointment and a sense of failure in many more.
Academic selection and the transfer test mean that two thirds of our children are deemed to be failures, which puts undue pressure on pupils, parents and teachers. For that reason there is widespread demand for the abolition of the test. We now have an opportunity to consider new post-primary arrangements that will value and cherish all children equally. They will open up options rather than close them down, and they will avoid having the majority of our children regarded as failures at the age of 11. To do so, we must address the issue of academic selection.

Mr Duncan Dalton: Does the Minister accept that in any post-primary system of education there will always be extremely good schools that will be oversubscribed, and that selection in some form is therefore inevitable? Does the Minister really believe that selection by postcode, and the financial inequity that that would create, is a better system for the twenty-first century?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I understand that there are concerns about the admissions criteria proposed in the review body’s report. My objective is to put in place arrangements that will provide excellence, equality and choice for all children. I do not want to disadvantage children in particular areas. The issue of proximity as the final criterion has raised particular concern, but it is important to remember that the majority of secondary schools and over half the grammar schools already use this criterion as a tie-breaker. However, as part of the consultation process, I would encourage people to consider and suggest alternatives.

Mr Edwin Poots: Does the Minister recognise that when bleeding-heart liberals in England and Wales took us down the road of comprehensive education, it led to poorer results there than in Northern Ireland, where the selection system was retained? Would it not be better to refine the selection system rather than go down the road of social engineering, which will end in poorer results for the children of Northern Ireland in the future?

Mr Martin McGuinness: Much work has been done on this issue over some time. The work carried out by Prof Tony Gallagher and Prof Alan Smith at Queen’s University Belfast and the University of Ulster made clear that the weaknesses of the current arrangements are unacceptable, and they must be addressed. Everybody, including the members of the Committee for Education, accepts that there is a need for change. Therefore, the status quo is not an option. The issue of academic selection must be addressed — that is at the heart of this debate.
There is a complacency about how well we perform compared with other countries. For example, the recent Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) study of reading, mathematics and science showed that we performed no better than England and Scotland. We were well behind other industrialised countries. The top performers — countries such as Finland and New Zealand — had non-selective systems.
Of the countries surveyed, we also have one of the widest ranges of performance. Within these islands, Scotland, which has a comprehensive system, has as many pupils gaining five GCSEs at grades A* to C and a similar proportion of young people entering higher education. England, which is often caricatured as having a failed comprehensive system, has a higher proportion of pupils achieving five GCSE passes at grades A to G than here in the North. Although we have more pupils who gain higher grade passes than in England, we also have more pupils who gain few passes at any grade. That highlights the wide range of achievement created by our academically selective system. We must face up to the fact that it is a system that does very well for some but poorly for many.

Working Groups

Mr Tom Hamilton: 6. asked the Minister of Education, pursuant to AQW 1444/01, to refrain from setting up working groups until such time as the consultation process on the Burns Report has been completed.
(AQO789/01)

Mr Martin McGuinness: I will not be making any decisions about new arrangements until I have considered the comments received during the consultation period, which ends on 28 June. However, it is important that my officials consider and assess the implications of the Burns proposals across the full range of the Department of Education’s responsibilities.

Mr Tom Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that a growing number of headmasters, boards of governors and teachers are of the belief that working groups, committees and subcommittees have been established, and that those groups are working towards an outcome that has already been decided?
Is the Minister also aware that there is growing concern in large sections of the teaching profession that the present consultation exercise is really little more than a sham and a deliberate effort to suppress the excellence already being achieved within the system via grammar schools, an excellence unparalleled in the United Kingdom and Ireland?

Mr Martin McGuinness: It is intended that working groups of officials will be established by the end of February. No decisions have been taken on any of the proposals in the Burns review, and no team has been set up to implement them. A small team comprising six officials, including support staff, has been established to manage the consultation, to receive and analyse comments and to introduce proposals for decisions in due course.
That consultation will be vital. I ask everybody with an interest in education to make a response to the consultation process by 28 June. It will be a real consultation. As an important aid to discussion, my Department intends to bring out a video which will be widely seen and will be followed by a pamphlet, which will be widely distributed, to give people an opportunity to respond on this important matter.
My Department is also looking at ways in which it can reach those who are less articulate and who might have difficulty responding. It intends to make the consultation process as easy as possible. The work is important and getting it right will be one of the most important tasks that the Assembly will have to face in its first term. Every Member has a responsibility to play his or her part. This is not about structures; it is about putting in place the best possible education system for children in a modern world. That is why I hope that there will be no politicking on the issue and that people will face up to the challenges and recognise that they can do a great service to society, teachers, pupils and parents by getting this right.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s answers. It is obvious from the supplementary questions from the other side of the House that there are many who do not see the need for change or recognise that the academic selection system has been a failure, even with the amount of consultation that has taken place so far — and there has been much consultation. Does the Minister think that consensus can be achieved on this?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I do not underestimate the enormity and complexity of the task. I have been encouraged by an emerging consensus on the guiding principles that should be the basis of any new system, especially that of valuing all children equally. Those guiding principles centre round ending the transfer tests, the value of pupil profiles and the value of collaboration and co-operation between schools.
We have a common goal, which is to ensure that our education system is capable of providing young people with opportunities to fulfil their potential and play a full role in society. We must all work together to achieve that. I want to achieve maximum consensus, but, as Minister of Education, I will not shirk my responsibility to take firm decisions that are in the best interests of all the children.

Capital Building Programme

Mr Billy Bell: 7. asked the Minister of Education to detail (a) how much funding will be available for the capital building programme in 2002-03; and (b) when he intends to announce the details; and to make a statement.
(AQO788/01)

Mr Martin McGuinness: Details of the next capital programme, and the funding for it, are still under consideration. However, I intend to announce the programme in March after consultation with the Committee for Education.

Mr Billy Bell: The Minister has recently visited at least one school with pressing capital building needs. Will he assure the House that all the other schools that he has not visited, and which are also facing severe accommodation difficulties — for example, those in my constituency of Lagan Valley — will receive fair and equitable consideration when decisions are made? How will the Minister achieve this?

Mr Martin McGuinness: We are very careful about how we move forward in all these matters, and I understand the sensitivities. However, the criteria and methodology for determining the school capital building programme are applied to all contenders. It is important that the education and library boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) and other schools authorities ensure at an early stage that their work on economic appraisals is sufficiently advanced for schools in their sectors to be considered for inclusion in the programme. The Department can consider schools only at that stage so that they can be assessed on their merits as regards educational need. That takes into account such factors as deficiencies in accommodation, the extent and condition of temporary accommodation, the ability of the school to meet the requirements of the curriculum, health and safety concerns in relation to mechanical, electrical and other areas of provision and the cost of maintaining the existing building fabric. This has to reflect the fact that the cost has to be affordable and contained within the resources available.
I have visited schools with pressing accommodation requirements. Indeed, I have visited more than one school, and I am conscious of the backlog of work that has to be caught up on. Some £500 million would be required to even begin to examine all those issues. I am under no illusions about the great difficulties faced by all school sectors. However, I can assure the House that decisions about capital support for schools and the school capital building programme are made solely on the basis of educational need. The criteria that I have outlined are the way forward, and they have been arrived at in consultation with the schools’ inspectorate, the education and library boards and the CCMS. I am also conscious of the situation in the Hillsborough area, and I am dealing with that as a matter of high importance.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I acknowledge the Minister’s detailed listing of the criteria by which he will make a decision in March. He said that the bottom line is that decisions are made solely on the basis of educational need. Does that include the application of the Programme for Government’s remit that it must also be rural and equality proofed? Does the Minister take that into consideration? If so, how will Johnny Citizen know that that has been taken on board, and in what way will it be open to discussion and constructive criticism? In other words, is there any meaning to rural proofing and the equality agenda in such decision-making?

Mr Martin McGuinness: The situation facing rural schools is particularly close to my heart. There is a responsibility on all of us to ensure that all schools are treated equally and that decisions are taken solely on the basis of educational need. Rurality of schools needs to be taken into account. I will be meeting the Committee for Education in the next couple of weeks, and we will discuss all those matters. It is important to be fair and to treat people with due respect. On my visits to schools, I have seen the great pressures that many boards of governors, schools authorities, principals, parents and teachers are under because of poor accommodation.
Accommodation is a high priority for my Department, and I have consistently fought the battle in the Executive for more resources. It is vital that we put in place proper accommodation so that we can offer the best possible environment for children to be educated in a sensible fashion. All those matters will be taken into account, but I must stress that the main criterion for the school capital building programme is educational need.

Mr Jim Shannon: Will there be equity for schools in the controlled sector in the capital building programme for 2002-03? There is a perception in the Unionist community that it will always be second best when it comes to handing out money for schools. Will Comber High School be included in the new build, as it urgently needs repairs? However, those repairs will fill the gap only in the short term.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I shall write to the Member about Comber High School, as I do not have that information to hand. The first point is an old chestnut that comes from a minority of Members. The allegations about the distribution of the school capital building programme fund are totally untrue and unjustified — [Interruption].

Mr Edwin Poots: It is three to one.

Mr Martin McGuinness: The school capital building programme is determined on the basis of educational need, whether that be at controlled schools, voluntary schools or in any other school sector. I heard the point being made about "three to one", so the Member who made that allegation should listen carefully. The make-up of this year’s conventional school building programme was six Catholic maintained school projects costing £25·7 million, 10 controlled school projects costing £24·1 million — including two special schools that were the top capital priorities of two education and library boards — and one grant-maintained integrated school costing £12·5 million. People who make such allegations need to examine those figures, and they need to be fair. They must stop peddling the nonsense that we will give preferential treatment to one school sector when decisions are taken about allocations to schools in the capital building programme. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our decisions on funding schools are based solely on educational need.

Noble Indicators

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 8. asked the Minister of Education if he has any plans to adopt the Noble indicators of multiple deprivation when assessing the needs of schools.
(AQO781/01)

Mr Martin McGuinness: I am totally committed to the application of New TSN principles to address social deprivation wherever it is found. My Department’s New TSN action plan includes an objective to improve the targeting and effectiveness of funding for schools in order to raise achievement levels. At present, I have no plans to adopt the Noble indicators when assessing schools’ needs. The needs of schools with high levels of socially disadvantaged pupils were addressed as part of my Department’s consideration of a common funding formula for schools. In that context, we examined the possibility of using Noble and other similar indicators as a means of allocating funds for social deprivation under the TSN factor in the proposed new common funding formula.
We need a robust and objective indicator, which is pupil oriented, to tackle social deprivation — principally because pupils do not always attend their nearest school. The Noble indicators are location based and, therefore, cannot be used to target resources in schools with socially deprived children in attendance. Entitlement to free school meals remains the most robust indicator of social deprivation, and that is a view widely supported by schools in the recent consultation. I have stated my willingness to keep the issue under review and to utilise more effective indicators should they become available.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I thank the Minister for his response, although I am somewhat disappointed. Does the Minister agree that every effort should be made to ensure that schoolchildren from all backgrounds receive nothing but the best, so that they can contribute positively as they move into adulthood?

Mr Martin McGuinness: I agree that every child should be given the best possible opportunity. We have formed the view that New TSN principles must be addressed through establishing free school meals entitlement in schools. However, I have not closed my mind to other ideas or suggestions, and I reiterate that I am willing to keep the issue under review and to utilise more effective indicators — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the Minister’s time is up, and time is up for questions to the Minister of Education.

Health, Social Services and Public Safety

Mr Speaker: Question 17, in the name of Mrs Mary Nelis, has been transferred to the Minister of Finance and Personnel and will receive a written answer.

Care for the Elderly

Mr Billy Armstrong: 1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what action has been taken to provide free long-term care for the elderly residing in nursing homes.
(AQO801/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ciallaíonn reachtaíocht bheartaithe nua, a chuirfear os comhair an Tionóil go gairid, nach gcuirfear costas chúram altranais san áireamh nuair a bheidh cumas daoine díol as costas cúraim i dtithe altranais á mheasúnú ó Dheireadh Fómhair na bliana seo.
D’aontaigh an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin fosta ag a gcruinniú an 3 Bealtaine 2001 gur chóir go mbunófaí sainghrúpa idir-ranna leis na himpleachtaí agus na costais a bhainfeadh le tabhairt isteach cúraim phearsanta saor in aisce do chónaitheoirí tithe altranais agus tithe cónaithe a bhreithniú.
Proposed new legislation, which will come to the Assembly shortly, will mean that from this October the cost of nursing care will not be included when people’s ability to contribute to the cost of being cared for in nursing homes is being assessed. At a meeting on 3 May 2001, the Executive agreed that an interdepartmental expert group should be established to examine the implications and costs of introducing free personal care for residential and nursing home residents and to report its findings to the Executive. The expert group has embarked on this work and will report to the Executive as soon as possible.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Does the Minister agree that the present system discriminates against those persons who have been put upon throughout their lives by paying tax and National Insurance? Should they not expect to be entitled to free nursing and personal care in later life?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I accept that there is an anomaly in nursing care. It is supplied free of charge, as a health service, to a person in his or her own home or to a resident in a residential care home, if it is supplied externally by a trust via the community nursing service. A resident has to pay for nursing care in a nursing home only where the service is supplied as part of the overall cost.
To remove this inequitable position I propose that from this October the nursing care element of the total cost will be met from public funds, which will reduce the overall cost at an individual level. As regards personal care, I refer the Member to my first answer.

Mr Gardiner Kane: What action will the Minister take to tackle the diabolically excessive increase in charges for patients in private nursing homes? What reassurance will she give to such patients?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: This is an interesting supplementary question to draw out the idea of my proposals for free long-term care for the elderly. I would not have thought that the present tariffs were exactly in line with that. The measures I am proposing aim to reduce the overall cost of care to those in nursing homes by removing the nursing care element. However, the amount that any individual pays is a matter between them and the homes in which they reside.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. My question was answered in the reply given to Mr Armstrong’s supplementary question.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the lack of care provided by the Southern Health and Social Services Board, where elderly people and disabled children have had their services withdrawn due to financial restrictions. Many elderly people have been left without any care, and care workers have been made unemployed. In the context of providing care, will the Minister indicate what action she can take to assist the board and the constituent trusts to provide care equal to that given in every other part of the Six Counties?

Mr Speaker: A huge number of Members asked to put supplementaries to the Minister on this question. It appears, however, that the supplementaries are somewhat tangential to the subject of the question. I must ask Members to stick to the original question. It is difficult enough when a large number of Members ask for supplementaries, but it is impossible to make a proper judgement when at least half of them are about something else. I must, therefore, move on.

Acute Services in Tyrone County Hospital

Mr Oliver Gibson: 2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety whether there has been any diminution of acute services in Tyrone County Hospital since July 2001.
(AQO778/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Dearbhaíodh domh gur ghlac Bord an Iarthair agus Iontaobhas Speirín, Tír na Lochanna cibé céimeanna is gá le próifíl géarsheirbhísí ag Ospidéal Chontae Thír Eoghain a choinneáil.
Mar shampla, leithroinn an bord £200,000 breise go hathfhillteach le seirbhísí altranais ag Ospidéal Chontae Thír Eoghain agus na hÉirne a choinneáil; tugadh fostaíocht bhuan do roinnt foirne sealadaí; agus tá an tIontaobhas ag infheistiú £500,000 breise le seirbhísí a choinneáil, lena n-áirítear foireann bhreise in ainéistic, i bpéidiatric agus i raideolaíocht.
I have been assured that the Western Board and the Sperrin Lakeland Health and Social Care Trust have taken such steps as are necessary to sustain the profile of acute services at Tyrone County Hospital. For example, the board has committed an extra £200,000 recurrently to sustaining nursing services at the Tyrone County Hospital and the Erne Hospital. A number of temporary staff have been made permanent, and the trust is investing an extra £500,000 to sustain services, which include the support of additional staff in anaesthesiology, paediatrics and radiology.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I find the Minister’s answer most interesting. It does not explain why, at the joint meeting of Fermanagh and Omagh district councils on Wednesday last week, the chief executive of the Sperrin Lakeland Health and Social Care Trust indicated that the Hayes Report would be implemented and that the intention was that Tyrone County Hospital would be run down. Will the Minister assure us that no one from her Department is advising him that that is the case while she is telling us otherwise?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: First, the Member’s question was about a diminution of acute services in Tyrone County Hospital since July 2001, and I had hoped that the supplementary question would bear some relation to that.
Secondly, under no circumstances has anyone given any indication other than that which I have reiterated here. After discussion in the Executive, proposals will be put out for consultation, an equality impact assessment will be carried out, and at that point during 2002 final decisions will be made. No decisions have been taken at this point.

Mr Derek Hussey: At the risk of being tangential, and rather than allow the Minister to run around in circles, I will ask if she is aware that when services within Sperrin Lakeland Health and Social Care Trust have been transferred from the Tyrone County Hospital in the past, the uptake has not reflected that expected in the conglomeration of the two services. Patients are voting with their feet, and in the Tyrone County Hospital side they are moving to another trust area for service.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Patients may vote with their feet, their cars, their buses or any other method of transport to avail of services. That is their right and their choice. However, the boards and trusts continually review their services to reflect demand, and they occasionally reconfigure services according to that demand. I have received an assurance from the trust that any sort of reconfiguration or realignment that takes place between winter and summer, or at any stage, to reflect demand will have no negative impact on patient safety or quality of care.
The board and the trust assure me that no distinction is made when considering the sustainability of the profiles in both hospitals pending the outcome of the acute hospitals review. That is what they have been asked to do, and they assure me that they are doing it.

Mr Joe Byrne: Does the Minister stand by the earlier commitment that the "bridge to the future" concept still pertains, so that the Tyrone County Hospital will not suffer a meltdown in acute services during the limbo period before a strategic decision is made by management? When does the Minister intend to pay an official visit to the Tyrone County Hospital in Omagh to meet the medical and nursing staff, who would appreciate such a visit, no doubt?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: When I made an official visit to hospitals in Omagh and Enniskillen in December, the staff at both hospitals told me that they greatly appreciated my visit.
On sustaining services and profiles at the hospitals pending final decisions in 2002, officials are meeting senior officers at the Western Board and the Sperrin Lakeland Trust on a regular basis. I am satisfied that the board and the trust are taking the steps necessary to secure services at both the Tyrone County and Erne Hospital sites. I reiterate that I have received assurances from the board and the trust that no distinction is being made when considering the sustainability of the profiles at those hospitals.

Junior Hospital Doctors’ Working Hours

Mr George Savage: 3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline (a) the average number of hours worked by junior hospital doctors in the past year; (b) if this has improved since the previous year; and (c) any strategies she is adopting to deal with this issue.
(AQO798/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Tá grúpa feidhmithe (ISG) bunaithe ag mo Roinn le cuidiú le hiontaobhais cloí leis na teorainneacha ar uaireanta oibre agus riachtanais scíthe an réitigh nua d’uaireanta dochtúirí sóisearacha. Ó Lúnasa 2001 tá ISG ag obair le hiontaobhais agus le boird leis an réiteach nua a sholáthar agus le caighdeáin chóiríochta agus lónadóireachta a fheabhsú.
Information on the average number of hours worked by junior doctors in the past year is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. My Department has established an implementation support group (ISG) to assist trusts to achieve compliance with the limits on hours of work and rest requirements in the new deal on junior doctors’ hours.
Since August 2001, the ISG has been working with trusts and boards to deliver the new deal and improve accommodation and catering standards. Key members of the ISG are engaged in an intensive round of visits to the trusts to identify problems and to check that trusts have given sufficient priority to achieving the new deal. They are also assisting trusts by spreading good practice, which will help trusts to achieve compliance through facilitating changes in doctors’ working patterns and practices and by instituting skill-mix initiatives where appropriate. The key priority for this year is to ensure that full compliance with new deal is achieved for all pre-registration house officer posts by August 2002.

Mr George Savage: I thank the Minister for her answer, but the underlying problem of the failure to train enough doctors must be addressed urgently. The increase in the number of places in universities’ medical schools is pitifully inadequate; junior doctors must therefore work long hours because there are not enough of them. That makes the profession increasingly unattractive to young people.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I agree with the Member’s comments about the number of people who have been trained in the past. I have said on many occasions that the funding failures of the past meant that money which should have been put into the system for health and social services was taken out of it. In addition, money and time were not invested in training, equipment and services for the community and its hospitals.
That has left the Department without the flexibility and capacity that it needs. I concur with the Member’s concerns about the impact that that has on junior doctors. I have met with junior doctors’ representatives. The ISG is working to tackle the necessary arrangements. The Department is undertaking a major workforce planning exercise in order to ensure that the necessary investments in training for the future are made now.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Has the Minister met with junior doctors and listened to their concerns?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: As I have said, I have met with junior doctors’ representatives. I am closely monitoring the progress of the work of the ISG. The group is paying particular attention to the introduction of a range of initiatives that will enhance support for junior doctors and will reduce or eliminate inappropriate tasks being carried out by them. The junior doctors met with the Chief Medical Officer at the end of last year. They have frequent meetings at official level, one of which is scheduled for later this week. They have representation on the ISG, which meets quarterly. Liaison meetings with the chairperson of the group take place between meetings of the entire group.

Mr Speaker: When the Minister is considerate enough to give an answer in not one but two languages, I request that Members ensure that their supplementary questions do not ask the previous question again. The Minister did not answer in Ulster Scots. However, I hope that, when I call Mr Shannon to put his question, it will not be a repetition.

Mr Jim Shannon: I shall put my question to the Minister in English. Will the Minister acknowledge that junior doctors, and indeed all doctors, work excessive hours? How many have needed time off due to overwork and stress? Is working those long hours against the trusts’ guidelines?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I share the Member’s concerns. A recent survey of all trusts and boards indicated that 70% of junior doctors are working in posts that are non-compliant with the hours and rest requirements of the new deal. That is why I have made certain that the work of the implementation support group, and any other work that can be done, will be done in order to meet those requirements. I commend the work of all of those who are working hard to ensure that arrangements are those that junior doctors and others should expect. This year’s key priority is that full compliance with the new deal is achieved for all pre-registration house officer posts by August.

Ovarian Cancer Research Programme

Ms Sue Ramsey: 4. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to make a statement on the ovarian cancer research programme announced recently.
(AQO806/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Tagraíonn an fógra a rinneadh le gairid ar thaighde ailse ubhagáin do thriail chomhoibritheach ar scagadh le haghaidh ailse ubhagáin a bhfuiltear ag tabhairt fúithi in Ospidéal Chathair Bhéal Feirste agus in ionaid ar fud Sasana, na hAlban agus na Breataine Bige. Mairfidh an triail 10 mbliana ,agus féachfaidh sí lena léiriú go deimhneach an féidir le scagadh le haghaidh ailse ubhagáin beo a shábháil.
The recent announcement on ovarian cancer research refers to a collaboration trial of ovarian cancer screening, which is being undertaken at Belfast City Hospital and at centres throughout England, Scotland and Wales. The trial will run for 10 years. It seeks to show definitively whether screening for ovarian cancer can save lives.

Ms Sue Ramsey: I thank the Minister for her answer. What does she hope to achieve from the trial?

Mr Speaker: If the Minister wishes to elaborate, I will happily give her the opportunity to do so, but she has given a clear answer about the purpose of the trial.

Ms Mary Nelis: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I do not take points of order during ministerial questions.

Ms Sue Ramsey: I wanted to ask what the Minister hopes to achieve from the trial.

Mr Speaker: I heard the question. I also heard the answer, and I think that I have some knowledge of those things.
Minister, you may elaborate if you wish, although you should not feel compelled to do so.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: As I said, the trial seeks to show definitively whether screening for ovarian cancer can save lives. Methods to detect ovarian cancer early have been developed, and the trial will determine how effective the screening tests are. It will be 2012 before final conclusions can be drawn. The importance of the trial lies in the fact that ovarian cancer is the fourth commonest cause of death from cancer among women here.

Investing for Health

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 5. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety when she will publish the implementation plan for the ‘Investing for Health’ Report.
(AQO780/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Tá súil agam an straitéis ‘Infheistíocht do Shláinte’ a fhoilsiú an mhí seo chugainn.
I hope to publish the ‘Investing for Health’ strategy next month.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: It was such a short answer that I almost did not hear what the Minister said.

Mr Speaker: Perhaps if the House were a little quieter and more attentive to the Minister, the Member would have a chance to hear the Minister’s concise answer.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: You are right, Mr Speaker.
Does the Minister agree that when targets are set, we expect action? Page 31 of the first Programme for Government, published in February 2001, stated that the public consultation for the ‘Investing for Health’ strategy was to be completed, and that by September 2001 an implementation plan was to be published. It is now February 2002, and we are still no further forward. With such dragging of feet, is it any wonder that the Health Service is in its current state?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: The consultation period was to end on 10 April 2001. However, because of difficulties in organising consultation events in rural areas as a result of foot-and-mouth disease, it was decided to extend the consultation period until 31 May. Even I am not responsible for foot-and-mouth disease. In the last plenary debate before the Christmas recess, one Member suggested that I was almost responsible for the Ulster fry and the amount that people in Ireland drink. However, to hold me responsible for foot-and-mouth disease is to take a step too far.
In addition, the ministerial group on public health agreed that a feedback conference would form an integral part of the consultation process, as that would inform respondents about the outcomes of the consultation and provide a final opportunity for comment. Having extended the consultation period until 31 May, it was not then feasible, if community representatives were to be included, to hold that conference during the summer. The conference was eventually held on 5 October.
The development of the strategy has since involved the co-ordination of input from all Departments, and the consideration of the draft strategy by a quality assurance group. As the Member knows, I chair the ministerial group on public health. Representatives on that group also include senior officials from every Executive Department. It will consider the final draft of the strategy at its meeting on Wednesday before submitting it to the Executive for approval.

Dr Joe Hendron: I am sure that the Minister’s report ‘Investing for Health’ will refer to measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccinations. Serious complications are associated with those diseases, and children’s health must be paramount. We understand the uncertainty of many parents about the safety of the MMR vaccine. Does the Minister agree that overwhelming evidence and research, including that from the World Health Organization, shows that MMR — [Interruption].

Mr Speaker: Order. If Members are trying to ask a supplementary question, they should try to find one that is at least relevant to the substantial question. The whole House accepts that the Chairperson’s question is important. However, the connection with the substantive question is tenuous to say the least. It would be unfair of me to permit the Member to continue.

Mr Pat McNamee: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Níl Ulster Scots ná Ullans agam, ach bainfidh mé triail as an Ghaeilge. An féidir leis an Aire insint dúinn cá mhéad ama a mheastar a bhéas riachtanach leis an phlean seo a chur i bhfeidhm?
After the consultation on the report and its finalisation, will the Minister indicate what timescale is involved in the implementation of the ‘Investing for Health’ plan?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Consultation was covered in my response to Mr McCarthy’s question. The implementation strategy will have several stages, but we see it as the future way of working. For it to succeed, there must be an effective partnership at every level. For the foreseeable future the ministerial group on public health will work with a variety of Departments to ensure that health factors are given due consideration in all areas of responsibility. In addition, the four health and social services boards will also lead local ‘Investing for Health’ partnerships to identify opportunities to improve the health of the people in their area by addressing the social, cultural, economic and environmental determinants of health. They will develop long-term, local, cross-sectoral health improvement plans, again with short-term and longer-term targets. In the statutory sector, district councils, the Housing Executive, education and library boards, and health and social services trusts will all be included in those partnerships. Beyond those core members, the composition of the partnerships will be determined locally and is likely to evolve over time. The idea behind that is that in future the work of the strategy will become an integral part of the planning and outworking of policy in all areas — not only in health.
Some implementation is immediate. I will shortly announce the community grants programme. Some will take slightly longer; the setting up of local partnerships will take place in the coming months. The most important part will be to establish a new way of working, in keeping with the Executive’s Programme for Government. For the foreseeable future interim targets will be regularly monitored.

Care of Special-School Leavers

Mr David Ford: 6. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to detail any discussions she has had with the Department of Education regarding the care of young people leaving schools such as Hillcroft Special School, Newtownabbey, at the age of 19.
(AQO784/01)

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Ní raibh aon phlé agam leis an Roinn Oideachas faoin ábhar seo.
Tá na socruithe le freastal ar riachtanais chúram sláinte daoine óga a fhágann scoileanna speisialta leagtha amach in alt 5 den Acht Daoine Míchumasacha (Tuaisceart Éireann) 1989. Soláthraíonn ‘Cód Cleachtais d’Aithint agus do Mheasúnú Riachtanas Speisialta Oideachas’ treoir faoi conas is cóir na socruithe a dhéanamh.
I have had no discussion with the Department of Education on that matter. Arrangements for meeting the continuing healthcare needs of young people leaving special schools are set out in section 5 of the Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. The Department of Education’s code of practice for the identification and assessment of special educational needs provides guidance on how such arrangements should be made. It is for the relevant education and library board to identify those leaving special schools and to inform the appropriate health and social services trust. In turn, the trust is responsible for assessing need and arranging for the necessary services to be provided.

Mr David Ford: I thank the Minister for her reply, which focused with procedures but dealt very little with the individuals who are clearly in need. Will she agree that there is a significant underprovision of places in day care for adults with learning disabilities? That is compounded by the difficulties of managing centres with increasing numbers of elderly people as well as young adults. Is she aware that approximately 40 minutes ago in the Chamber, the Minister of Education gave an undertaking that education and library boards might offer facilities to health and social services trusts outside school hours, subject to local agreement? If so, will she follow up that ministerial initiative and ensure that funds are provided to community health and social services trusts to enable the use of school facilities to provide for adults whose age excludes them from the remit of special schools?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I am aware of the pressure on statutory day care facilities, particularly as a result of the factors that the Member raised, and also because of the increasing number of people with severe disabilities who are unable to access alternative day facilities.
It is for the health and social services boards and trusts to assess need and provide the appropriate range and volume of services. That is why I outlined the arrangements in my opening answer. Those arrangements are between the education and library boards and the health and social services boards and trusts, and I am certain that the boards and trusts will wish to follow up any suggestion of facilities that might be made available. That raises the question of whether that would automatically mean that they could provide appropriate facilities or that there would be funding available for them. They need to examine all that.
It is for the relevant boards and trusts to inform themselves of the needs of those leaving special schools in their areas and to plan to meet those needs. I understand that funding is needed for day care and for a range of other health and social services, and I will examine that with a view to allocating additional funding in 2002-03. I will announce my decisions in due course.

Mr Jim Wilson: Does the Minister agree that all young people leaving special education should be entitled to a full-time place at an adult facility or day centre in order to continue to avail of the opportunities that were created for them at the special school? I am thinking, in particular, of the Riverside School in Antrim. It has a high reputation, but it cannot send its pupils, on leaving, to the local day centre, which is advising in advance that it will be unable to admit them.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I am aware of several schools; those mentioned are both in the Homefirst Community Health and Social Services Trust area. That trust is planning how best to meet the needs of those who they know are leaving special schools in the area. Those needs include social work support, day care, respite care and a challenging-behaviour service. As I said in answer to the previous supplementary question, the availability of resources is an issue, and I will consider it.
The Homefirst Community Health and Social Services Trust advises me that it has identified those young people who will transfer to adult services, and it is planning to meet their needs.

Mr Speaker: Order. The time for questions to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is up.

Finance and Personnel

Mr Speaker: The Minister of Finance and Personnel makes another appearance. Even after this, his work will not be over.
I wish to inform the House that question 6, in the name of Mr Gibson, has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer. Question 12, in the name of Mr McGrady, has been withdrawn and no longer requires an answer.

Peace II Funding

Mr Edwin Poots: 1. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel what measures are in place to ensure that Peace II funding is distributed equitably across all sections of the community.
(AQO823/01)

Dr Sean Farren: All areas, groups and sectors will have an equal opportunity to access Peace II funding. Equality of opportunity and balanced intervention are among several horizontal principles that govern the way in which the Peace II programme will be implemented. Furthermore, in accordance with section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Special EU Programmes Body has a responsibility to promote equality of opportunity.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

Mr Edwin Poots: That being the case, perhaps the Minister will explain the situation in Lisburn. Funding was not distributed equally the last time: the Protestant community did not get its fair allocation. The new board does not reflect the balance in the community. Its chairperson and deputy chairperson are Roman Catholic, although the community is 70% Protestant. Coming from a background of unfair allocations, how can we expect equity and equality in the community? How does the Minister expect the public to have any confidence in the process?

Dr Sean Farren: Members will appreciate that I did not have any responsibility for the matters that the Member seems to be pointing to.
However, I would be very concerned if there were any substantial evidence to back up the Member’s remarks. If he has any such evidence, he should make it available to me. In my initial response, I indicated that the Executive have a clear, firm and explicit obligation to respect all equality requirements when allocating EU Peace II programme funds. That applies to EU funds and to all expenditure for which the Executive are responsible, and it applies across the board when allocating any form of public funding. Again, without evidence that would enable me to make a judgement, it is impossible for me to answer the question.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: How will Peace II resources be targeted?

Dr Sean Farren: Peace II resources will be targeted on areas, sectors and groups that have been adversely affected by the conflict over the past 30 years. Those will include areas that were disadvantaged by the conflict, interface areas, victims and their families, ex-prisoners and their families, young people, women, older workers, and sectors or activities in business, the arts and sports that have been adversely affected by the conflict.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. How does the Minister expect Peace II funding to be distributed equitably, given that it is based on need — rather than religion, as the DUP may suggest — and given that district council areas west of the River Bann have seen a decrease in the allocation of Peace II funding?

Dr Sean Farren: I have made it clear that funds are allocated on the basis of equality with due respect to the requirements set out in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Member will be aware — and members of the Committee for Finance and Personnel will be even more aware — of the considerable amount of consultation and discussion that has taken place on the basis on which allocations would be made, for example, to local strategic partnerships in the current round of Peace II funding allocations. The indicators were agreed by the Committee for Finance and Personnel and the Executive, which therefore includes the Ministers from the Member’s party.

Official Cars

Mr Ken Robinson: 2. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail the funding arrangements in place for the use of official cars by Ministers in the Executive.
(AQO808/01)

Dr Sean Farren: The Department of Finance and Personnel funds the provision of official transport for 10 of the 14 Ministers. Different funding arrangements apply to the transport for the First Minister and the Ministers for Regional Development, Education and Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Mr Ken Robinson: I thank the Minister for his reply. Like the rest of us, I am sure that the Minister is desirous of keeping down the cost of official transportation for Ministers. Is he satisfied that the most cost-effective arrangements are in place, particularly bearing in mind the relative cost of using official chauffeurs and contracted outside firms?

Dr Sean Farren: I am satisfied that that is the case. A comparison of the costs of the alternative arrangements for providing official transport concluded that there were substantial savings — £300,000 in a full year — to be had from maintaining an in-house service as opposed to a contracted service. The average cost per hour for in-house provision was found to be approximately £7 less than the service provided by a contractor.

Green Purchasing Policies

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 3. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to make a statement on the Executive’s plans to implement green purchasing policies throughout Government Departments.
(AQO771/01)

Dr Sean Farren: The procurement review team’s report, which has been subject to public consultation, includes recommendations aimed at ensuring that environmental issues are integrated into public procurement policy. The contributions to the consultation exercise are being considered together with the team’s recommendations, and I will bring forward policy proposals to the Executive in due course.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: Will the Minister outline the environmental policy currently operated by the Department?

Dr Sean Farren: Each Department is responsible for examining the environmental impact of its activities, including procurement, as set out in the Northern Ireland Civil Service policy statement on green housekeeping. In my Department, where it is intended that the Government Purchasing Agency (GPA) should purchase goods or services specifically mentioned in the policy document, the appropriate environmental criteria are included in contract documentation. In addition, the Government Purchasing Agency tender documentation encourages suppliers to adopt positive environmental policies.

Mr Derek Hussey: The Minister will be aware that great efforts are being made by his ministerial Colleague Mr Foster, and by district councils, to promote waste minimisation, recycling and so on. Is the Minister aware that the market for recycled products is one of the concerns as to the viability of recycling? In the interests of having a cross-cutting policy, would it not be circumspect for the Assembly, and government in general, to adopt a policy of using recycled paper and other materials?

Dr Sean Farren: I take on board the points that Mr Hussey has made. Where Departments and Government agencies are not respecting policy set down in the guidelines in the Northern Ireland Civil Service green housekeeping document, I would be anxious to ensure that henceforth they do.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In the implementation of purchasing policies for Government Departments, has the Minister considered credit unions, as well as banks, with regard to financial arrangements within the Assembly?

Dr Sean Farren: The question strays outside the parameters of the original issue, which was related to public procurement. Nonetheless, I am sympathetic to the credit union movement, and where it can be facilitated by Government finances, I am sure that the matter will receive sympathetic consideration.

Noble Indicators

Mr Francie Molloy: 4. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline whether the Noble indicators of multiple deprivation have been rural and TSN-proofed before being used for allocating resources and EU funds.
(AQO770/01)

Dr Sean Farren: The Noble research was designed to measure deprivation in urban and rural areas by selecting indicators that are applicable to both. The measures will inform the spatial targeting of programmes and will contribute to the application of targeting social need throughout government. The indicators that make up the measures, and the measures themselves, were agreed by all members of the Executive — including the two Ministers from Mr Molloy’s party — prior to the publication of the report in July 2001.

Mr Francie Molloy: Ceist uimhir a ceathair. First, I must correct something that the Minister said previously. The Committee for Finance and Personnel did not agree the allocations — in fact, the Committee opposed the allocations because they were linked not only to the Noble indicators but also to population. How does the Minister propose to target social need, particularly west of the Bann — an area that has been depopulated as a result of the role of successive British Governments and Unionist regimes? Currently, population is used as a measure, along with the Noble indicators, which do not target social need.
How does he explain the exclusion of large areas that were targeted by Noble as being deprived? The allocations to the district partnership boards have been reduced by £1 million.

Dr Sean Farren: I said earlier that there was widespread consultation on the Noble indicators, and that the Committee was involved in that consultation. It received presentations from officials in my Department. I will examine Hansard, and if I was inaccurate, I will ensure that that is corrected. I stressed that agreement on the use of the indicators was reached in the Executive, which includes two Ministers from the Member’s party. I reiterate that point, because in an earlier debate Mr McGrady raised the matter of collective responsibility. We need to ensure that collective responsibility for Executive decisions is fully respected.
The development of the Noble indicators was a complex process. The index includes all the factors related to deprivation, and, appropriately, it relates those factors to the size of the population of an area. The allocations are then made on the basis of the indicators that are provided for each district council area. There has been concern about the matter, but the Member can receive again, through his Committee, a detailed presentation of all the issues related to the Noble indicators, if he and his Committee so wish. All Members are invited to gain information on how the indicators and the factors related to them were arrived at, and on their application.

Mr Fred Cobain: Further to that answer, if Departments are using the Noble indicators of multiple deprivation in spending reviews and to influence decisions, why is the Minister of Education using different indicators in spending programmes? Does the Minister agree that the indicators should have been subject to a full, open debate in the House, and will he give a commitment to have such a debate?

Dr Sean Farren: I cannot possibly answer the first part of the Member’s question. It must be directed to the Minister identified in the question.

Mr Fred Cobain: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Sir John Gorman: No points of order are allowed.

Dr Sean Farren: The Member, in his question, asked me to speak on behalf of the Minister of Education about the issues that he raised. I cannot do that.
As I said before, the Noble indicators were developed and agreed as the basis upon which the allocations under Peace II programmes would be made. It is not possible to reopen the basis upon which those allocations are made. As I said in my previous response, Members can become fully informed about all the factors related to deprivation that inform the development of the Noble indicators. That would at least help Members to understand that, as a result of the widespread consultation, there seems to have been wide acceptance of the weighting of all those factors, in rural and urban areas.
I recognise that the way in which they are working out seems to cause concern. However, if Members wish to be as fully informed as possible on what has gone into making these indicators up, I will be only too happy to make that information available from my Department.

European Moneys

Ms Jane Morrice: 5. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether European moneys have been returned to Brussels as a result of underspend and whether these moneys would be redirected to areas in need.
(AQO785/01)

Dr Sean Farren: No European money has been returned to the Commission as a result of underspending from the structural funds programmes for Northern Ireland. Funds in structural funds programmes can be redirected only within the guidelines and regulations laid down by the European Commission.

Ms Jane Morrice: I thank the Minister for that response. I would like an explanation, therefore, of the numerous occasions on which the Budget and the Supplementary Estimates for Peace and Reconciliation funding — Peace I — have been reduced. By how much has that been reduced across all Departments? Can the Minister give us guarantees that that money will not go back to Brussels? Can it be used to bridge the gap between Peace I and Peace II? It was my understanding that if moneys were not spent by the end of a certain period, which was last December, they would go back.

Dr Sean Farren: I can assure the Member that it is expected that all moneys related to Peace I will be spent as planned. It is in the nature of the way in which funding is drawn down from Europe that money is drawn down against expenditure and, therefore, that there is no question of a return. However, I want to underline that it is anticipated that all of the planned expenditure will take place.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: What monitoring arrangements are in place to ensure that underspent money is directed where it is needed, particularly to areas such as Strabane and west Tyrone, which lost out in Peace II funding?

Dr Sean Farren: The treatment of structural funds expenditure is based on the principle that receipts from the European Community should be managed, disbursed and monitored in exactly the same way, and using the same systems, as our own public expenditure. The basic principles of Government accounting apply to European Community receipts. In Northern Ireland the community structural fund monitoring committee has an overarching role across our structural funds programmes to ensure effective implementation and value for money.

Absenteeism Levels

Mr Roy Beggs: 7. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to explain (a) why administrative officers’ absenteeism at 10% should be almost 3% higher than the levels for civil servant grades above and below that grade; and (b) what action is being taken to manage such high absenteeism levels.
(AQO820/01)

Dr Sean Farren: The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) has developed robust statistics to help Departments identify underlying trends and areas for more in-depth analysis by age, grade and gender. For example, those statistics revealed that the female absence rate is twice as high as the male one, and that has an impact on absenteeism at the level of administrative officer, which is predominately female. A copy of the report ‘Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Northern Ireland Departments, 2000-01’ by NISRA is available in the Assembly Library.
My Department also assists other Departments in tackling absenteeism through a range of corporate initiatives, including the development of a web site called ‘Attendance Matters’ for staff and managers. Service-wide seminars and workshops on managing attendance, as well as an awareness leaflet on support and early-return mechanisms, are available to Northern Ireland Civil Service staff. However, in that context it is important to bear in mind that approximately 80% of all lost working days were supported by a doctor’s certificate.

Mr Roy Beggs: I welcome the news that the Minister is taking the matter seriously, that web sites are being developed and that additional training is being provided. Does the Minister agree that such high levels of absenteeism are unacceptable? They are almost three times higher than those in the private sector, as illustrated in a recent Confederation of British Industry (CBI) survey. Furthermore, will he confirm that high levels of absenteeism place additional burdens and stresses on those members of the Civil Service who are at work serving the general public?

Dr Sean Farren: This is an issue that must be approached sympathetically. It is notoriously difficult to carry out meaningful comparisons with other organisations, in both the public and the private sectors, for a variety of reasons. Sick absence rates are often calculated on a different basis and do not allow for factors such as the gender and age profile or the volume of part-time working to be taken into account, all of which have been shown to have an impact on absenteeism rates. Similarly, a recent CBI survey identified that company size is a key determinant of absence rates, with the smallest firms having a sick absence rate of approximately 40% less than the largest ones.
I can assure the Member that Departments are not at all complacent about this. As he acknowledged in his question, action is being taken to address some of the areas in which absenteeism is at its highest.

Magherafelt Bypass

Rev William McCrea: 8. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel if he will give an undertaking to provide adequate finances to the Department for Regional Development in order to secure the Magherafelt bypass.
(AQO774/01)

Dr Sean Farren: I wonder whether I should be flattered by the amount of authority that the Member’s question seems to invest in me with respect to funding for the bypass at Magherafelt. Funding of Roads Service capital schemes and prioritising spending of the capital budget for roads are matters for the Minister for Regional Development in the first instance, and not for the Minister of Finance and Personnel. Any request by a Minister for additional funding is a matter for consideration by the Minister of Finance and Personnel and, indeed, the whole Executive.

Rev William McCrea: The Minister should not flatter himself too much. He should understand that the roads’ infrastructure throughout the Province is in a state of grave neglect. The Executive must give higher priority to the Department for Regional Development when funds are being allocated to enable schemes such as the Magherafelt bypass to become a reality. It has been in the 15-year programme for many years. I am not asking the Minister in any way to suggest which road or scheme should have higher priority, but the allocations of money made by his Department to the Department for Regional Development are vital to getting this road built.

Dr Sean Farren: The Member may appreciate that I am too humble a person to flatter myself. I was suggesting that he might be flattering me.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: What would he do that for?

Dr Sean Farren: The Member better ask him. He is his party leader. Perhaps Dr McCrea is thinking about changing his mind on some issues.
However long a particular proposal or scheme is in the pipeline, ultimately the responsibility for making the case for it has to fall to the Minister responsible. Perhaps the question in the first instance might have been better directed to the Minister for Regional Development, who, I understand, is still a Colleague of the Member.

Peace II Programme

Mr Mick Murphy: 9. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to detail the number of applications received under measure 2.1 of the Peace II European Support Programme; and to make a statement on the success of the online completion of applications.
(AQO811/01)

Dr Sean Farren: Applications to this measure are ongoing. To date, 25 have been formally submitted, of which 13 were submitted online and 12 manually. A further 55 online applications have been initiated under this measure.
The application form is in two parts. Part A can be completed either online or manually, and part B must be completed manually. The online application process is working well, with some 3,900 applications initiated. A total of 1,603 applications have been submitted formally for building sustainable prosperity and Peace II, of which 1,014 are for Peace II.

Mr Mick Murphy: Can the Minister say if there were any drawbacks for online applications because of the closing date in December? Were any communities hindered?

Dr Sean Farren: There were no inhibitions or hindrances to applicants. There was heavy online traffic towards the closing date for receipt of applications, which made it difficult to gain access. However, steps have been taken to address that problem, and no applicants have been inhibited from making an appropriate application.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: There was some concern about community organisations not having access to the Internet. Can the Minister assure the House that that was not a problem and that it did not affect those who wished to apply using the traditional method?

Dr Sean Farren: Applications can be made in the traditional way. The 12 paper applications referred to in my main reply were submitted using the traditional method, and both methods of application were equally acceptable.

NHS Funding

Mr Fred Cobain: 10. asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel, in view of the underspend in the NHS in the last financial year, to outline what mechanisms are in place to ensure that additional departmental budget allocations are spent in-year.
(AQO809/01)

Dr Sean Farren: The Executive are determined to ensure that resources, once allocated, are spent where they are most needed. That is achieved through the in-year monitoring process, where spending is monitored by Departments with significant underspends — actual or forecast — being notified to the Department of Finance and Personnel on four specified occasions. At each point any spare capacity is reallocated, at the discretion of the Executive, to other pressures that may have arisen in other spending programmes.

Sir John Gorman: Time is up. The Minister will reply in writing to any supplementary questions.
We will resume the debate — [Interruption].

Mr Fred Cobain: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
In his reply, the Minister said that the Noble indices were being used to target and spend departmental moneys. The Minister of Education is not using the Noble indicators as a way of spending departmental moneys, and that issue needs to be raised.
On a further point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister of Education said that he had consulted widely before coming to the conclusion that the Nobel indices were the best way of indicating social deprivation. The House has not had a chance to debate those issues, even though there has been wide consultation outside the House.

Sir John Gorman: That is not a matter for the Minister of Finance and Personnel but rather for the Minister of Education. I strongly suggest that you take up the matter with the relevant Minister.

Mr Fred Cobain: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is supposed to be collective responsibility in the Executive. We are supposed to have spending programmes that run through all the Departments. That cannot happen if each Minister is using different indices to tackle social deprivation.

Sir John Gorman: I repeat: take the matter up with the relevant Minister.
Supply Resolutions: Spring Supplementary Estimates (2001-02) and Vote on Account (2002-03)

Supply Resolutions:

Debate resumed on motion:
That this Assembly approves that a further sum not exceeding £198,035,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2002 and that further resources, not exceeding £574,419,000, be authorised for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2002 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 2(b) and 3(b) of Table 1 in the volume of the Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates 2001-02 that was laid before the Assembly on 11 February 2002. — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel.]
The following motion also stood in the Order Paper:
That this Assembly approves that a sum not exceeding £3,936,009,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund on account for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2003 and that resources, not exceeding £4,486,387,000, be authorised, on account, for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2003 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 4 and 6 of Table 1 in the Vote on Account 2002-03 document that was laid before the Assembly on 11 February 2002. — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel.]

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development has recommended over and over again that there should be an increase in Budget funds for animal disease compensation. I am glad that that problem has been mentioned in the Supplementary Estimates, and that there has been a call for extra funding. Neither I nor anyone else wants to be involved in the enormous subsidisation of a disease. We want the disease to be eradicated. However, the situation in the Province as regards brucellosis and TB is serious, and incidences of those diseases are on the rise.
The Public Accounts Committee has highlighted the cost of brucellosis. However, TB is also an expensive disease. At a recent meeting of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, it was revealed that £9·3 million had been paid in compensation for brucellosis, and £9 million for TB. An additional sum of £8·24 million was spent on testing and compensation administration costs. The Committee asked the question: if that is the expenditure, and the diseases are spreading, does the Department have the finances to continue to compensate farmers if their herds have those diseases? The reply was that the money would run out.
I want to know whether the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, having taken a reading of what will happen with regard to those diseases, and if they continue to spread, has asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel if the money will be there? I am sure that the Minister of Finance and Personnel, coming from a rural district, knows what farmers would think if they had those diseases on their farms and animals had to be slaughtered. What will a farmer think if his neighbour receives compensation, and the Department turns round and tells him that the kitty has run out? Has the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development made the Minister officially aware of this problem? Is the request for increased finance likely to be enough to deal with the situation?

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the Member appreciate that there are several farmers in Northern Ireland whose herds have been scrutinised by departmental officials, and that those officials, having evaluated the herds, have indicated in writing their value and, after the herd has been slaughtered, have withdrawn those offers of compensation? Does the Member accept that that causes severe problems for the image of the Department in the farming community, and severe problems for farmers in their relations with the banks?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I am aware of such situations, because they have happened in my constituency, which my son also represents in the House. We are all aware of such situations, and they constitute a serious matter. An even worse case was presented to me today. There was a foot-and-mouth disease scare, and the sale of certain cattle had been agreed.
The animals were not paid for, but they were moved to the purchaser’s farm. However, the Department slaughtered all of them before he could pay for them. The man said that he had not paid for the animals, that they belonged to so-and-so and that therefore, technically, he was the owner. The owner then wrote to the Department and said that his herd had been slaughtered without his being informed. He said that he expected compensation, but the Department said that it could not pay him.
Those are the constituency matters that we deal with, and that is why it is so important that we know exactly what is happening. We take these matters up with the Minister and the Department because that is the first place we can go. We cannot expect the Finance Minister, with all his talents, brains and flatteries, to wave a magic wand. However, it is a matter of grave concern for farmers, and we should be concerned about the spread of brucellosis and TB. There was a time when the incidence of brucellosis and TB in the Province was very low. We have lost out badly. We need to eradicate diseases rather than compensate farmers with those diseases on their farms, and provision must be made for that.
My Committee has questioned if money will be available should the Minister decide that the vision report is to be acted upon and that the recommendations from the report are to move from the page and become reality. We have been told that there is no money available. The Minister set up a body to introduce important proposals on difficult situations in agriculture, yet no provision has been made to make money available to introduce the report’s recommendations. That too is very important.
There is a matter I wish to raise without wearing my Chairperson’s hat, although all members of the Committee are concerned about it. There is a need for a retirement scheme and a new entrants scheme for farmers. On the opposite Bench another man with great talents also raised the issue — and how could he not be with great talents, for we both sit in another place together? He made a very strong plea on the matter, and I want to back that up. There are men who have spent their days, and hoped to end their days quite comfortably, in farming, but that hope has been smashed. We all know about the state of agriculture. Can these men, in the last days of their lives, not retire with dignity and honour and have enough to live comfortably for whatever years are left to them? Is it unreasonable for us to say that they should?
We also need new entrants, but many of the regulations that govern agriculture put a barricade in their way. We must oil the hinges, take off the locks, open the door and let new entrants in with a helping hand so that they can get to a place where they can earn a living from the soil.
This is an important issue, and I trust that the Minister will soon announce that it has been considered and that money will be available so that we can have a proper retirement scheme. It will cost a great deal of money, but new entrants to farming will ensure that the industry has a future.
I hope that the next time we discuss this matter we will have good news about brucellosis and tuberculosis. People are working hard and are spending time carrying out tests and investigations. This is an important matter — £8·24 million has been spent. This will be a thorough review of the situation, and I hope that they are successful. It is to be hoped that we will have the pleasant knowledge that brucellosis and tuberculosis have been conquered.

Mr Seamus Close: It has been said that a year is a long time in politics, and that time passes very quickly when one is enjoying oneself. It does not feel like a year since the last time we were discussing spring Supplementary Estimates, which was on 19 February 2001. I stress that date, and I ask Members to bear it in mind.
I remember the date vividly. At that time I drew attention to the need for change in how the Assembly went about its budgets and Supplementary Estimates. I remember drawing attention to the need for Members to have more time to analyse, scrutinise and deal with the topic in front of them. I also drew attention to the need for proper consultation, openness and transparency. I referred to the cold, harsh fact that we see the results of monitoring rounds retrospectively — as a fait accompli.
At that time, the then Minister acknowledged these shortcomings, and he pointed out that resource accounting was coming on board and that it would enhance the accountability of Departments and help to address many concerns raised by Members. Today is 11 February 2002 — less than a year has passed. We have had less time to give the matter full scrutiny and less time for consultation. As I stressed, the equivalent debate last year took place on 19 February.
We have a full set of resource accounts for this year’s spring Supplementary Estimates. We have masses of figures in front of us — and I concede that point most willingly. However, I also openly admit to being more than a little blinded by the science of these figures. Again, I stress that more time should have been afforded to Members to properly get their heads around the new system of resource accounting.
It has been said that it is an improved system, and I acknowledge that. However, the system is improved only if it enlightens Members and helps them understand — on behalf of the taxpayer — the intricacies and accountability that is necessary if we are to perform a proper service on behalf of those who send us here.
It is a complex system; a fact that has been recognised by the Minister, and I thank him for that recognition. However, we must continue to press, at Committee level and on the Floor of the House, for more transparency rather than allow transparency to appear to be an illusion.
The spring Supplementary Estimates are effectively the consolidation of a done deal that, through the associated Budget Act, will provide the legislative authority to the Executive to spend taxpayers’ money.
I stress again that we need to keep the pressure on, on the Floor of the House and at Committee level, in an attempt to prise open the vice-like grip on information that is held by someone or other.
Last year, I highlighted other similarities, and I must question them again this year. The total figure in the Supplementary Estimate last year was £196 million — approximately 2% to 2·5% of the Main Estimate. I drew attention to that figure, as it was similar in percentage terms to that of the previous year. The figure this year is £198 million of cash required. Are these figures an amazing coincidence — is it lightning striking, not once or twice, but three times? Or are these figures, as I suspect, a planned calculation?
I was advised last year that different factors that could not be predicted led to Supplementary Estimates of 2% to 2·5% of Main Estimate provisions. That may well be so, but I am not convinced that the current system leads to the best use of taxpayers’ money. I will expand on that point.
Members may recall that last year I called on each Department to consider releasing £10 million of its budget to assist in the crisis in the Health Service. That would have produced an additional £100 million to ease that crisis. The Ministers responded with shock and horror. I was told that it could not be done; it could not be afforded. The Executive acknowledged that health was recognised as a priority, and we all endorsed it, yet the other Departments needed every single penny they could get their hands on and knew how they were going to spend it on important issues. Yet, today, in the consolidation of the monitoring rounds, £198 million of easements are available in the system for reallocation.
The Minister said that monitoring rounds are effectively short-term money. I accept that.

Mr Robert McCartney: Does the Member agree that when a financial crisis or issue arises in one of the Departments, miraculously, as I once described it, millions of pounds can be found down the side of the sofa and behind the clock? Is that what the Member is referring to?

Mr Seamus Close: That is my point. I will go further than that. We have such a crisis in our number one priority that greater effort needs to be made in the lead-up to the beginning of the year to ensure that sufficient funds are allocated to that priority to deal with the pressures. We all know that those pressures are going to build up throughout the year.
As I said before, each Department can put up a good argument as to why it should receive more money. That is not disputed — Northern Ireland has been underfunded for years. However, if we believe in a number one priority, then the Assembly must back up those words with resources. That has not been done, and continues to be neglected.
Lead-in for financial resources requires time and planning to enable money to be spent. That is nowhere more obvious than in the Health Service. Over the past two years the funding has not been made available, and the crisis is getting worse.
Recently, I received a letter from the chairperson of the Northern Ireland office of the British Medical Association (BMA) which stated that
"the crisis within the Health Service in Northern Ireland is escalating … I write to you to highlight the deep frustration and concern felt throughout the medical profession about the continuing crisis within the health service in Northern Ireland".
The letter makes several recommendations. I hope that all Members will concur with the recommendation that there should be an immediate review of the system of allocating funding in Northern Ireland, with the aim of replacing it with a more effective and accountable system. We should all say, "Hear, hear" to that. We have an opportunity to try to ensure that money is given according to our aspirations.
If we continue to follow what the previous Minister of Finance called "the silo mentality", we will continue to push the problem down the pipe, rather than resolving it. We continue to fail to give proper prioritisation to the need for spending where it is needed. It hurts me that the Executive are still reticent to examine, recognise and grasp the necessity to implement the necessary changes. I hear words, but, after several years, I must question their sincerity.
We have a new Minister of Finance. However, to clarify my point about words, when the Finance Committee was dealing with the Budget Bill, it received a letter on 15 February 2001 from the Department of Finance and Personnel and signed by the then Minister, Mr Durkan. It says that
"We have sought to provide as full a scope for discussion with the Committee for Finance and Personnel as has been possible in the context of this financial year. I will want to work with the Committee to provide for further analysis and discussion of these issues in future and to continue to improve the approach for future years as far as possible. I am very grateful for the assistance of the Committee on these issues."
On 5 February 2002, the Committee received a letter from the new Minister, Mr Farren, which stated
"We have sought to provide as full a scope for discussion with the Committee for Finance and Personnel as has been possible in the context of this financial year. I will want to work with the Committee to provide for further analysis and discussion of these issues in future, and to continue to improve the approach for future years as far as possible. I am very grateful for the assistance of the Committee on these issues."
Members will recognise that those paragraphs are identical. I read them out to illustrate my point and to ask where the new thinking is. I want to stress the necessity for new thinking, rather than the repetition of words that are often meaningless. It is time for new thinking and for new ideas to be put to the test, rather than to continue with the patterns and the words of the past. It is time for change.
Mr McGrady called for new funds from outside Northern Ireland. I accept his points. Greater priority must be given to the needs of Northern Ireland, on a UK, a European and a worldwide basis. We are told that money is scarce. However, we have seen billions of pounds spent on war and killing, while the Health Service continues to crumble.
I have just received the ‘Service Agreement Monthly Monitoring Report’ for December 2001 from the Eastern Health and Social Services Board. With regard to fractures, it says that
"In late December early January the fracture figures began to escalate again. This situation was deemed critical".
Turning to operating theatres, it says that
"The difficulties with theatre staffing in the Trust mean that many elective lists are having to be cancelled routinely".
On in-patient and day-case waiting lists by specialty and waiting times, it says that
"At 31 December 2001, there were 29,952 EHSSB residents on waiting lists for elective surgery. Of these 4,061 have been waiting longer than the Charter limit".
The situation regarding delayed discharges and community care waiting lists is that
"both delayed patients and delay days at December end 2001 were 33% higher than at December 2000 … 136 people were reported as waiting for care packages due to non-availability of funding in December".
I could go on. All hospitals have reported bed availability problems as a result of delayed discharges. At the end of December 2001, community trusts reported that 136 elderly people were waiting for care packages, or for uplift to existing packages, due to no funding being available. Last year that figure was 126.
Dr Paisley spoke at length about concerns for animal health. That is justifiable. However, I emphasise the need for human health, and the need for the Assembly to deal with its resources in a more appropriate and effective manner that creates transparency and accountability and, more importantly, gives meaningful resolution to the problems that we face.
I referred to the need for external sources of funding. Again, I point to sources of funds within departmental budgets. Two or more years ago, the Executive talked about releasing funding because of the over-administration of Northern Ireland. Is there one less quango in Northern Ireland than there was when the Assembly was elected in 1998? The answer is "No." We still have the skins of the onion — the 26 local authorities, the many trusts, the health boards and the education boards — the layer upon layer of administration that is costing the taxpayer money. Examine the Estimates. Without exception, Departments’ administrative costs are increasing. Those are the areas on which the Assembly must concentrate in order to bring about some resolution. Unless that is done, the Assembly is kidding itself — and, more importantly, it is kidding the people that it is supposed to represent.

Ms Jane Morrice: Like many other Members, I spent the weekend poring over these figures. They threw up more questions than answers. I want to ask those questions in detail today. However, I would like to begin by pointing out the features of the document that the Women’s Coalition regards as positive in relation to the needs of Northern Ireland.
The party welcomes the additional money that is going towards disabled access to, for example, schools and universities. That is a valuable area of expenditure. We welcome new expenditure on issues such as energy efficiency in schools. I hope that that is being extended to hospitals, particularly in the light of the high fuel costs indicated in the Budget. We also welcome additional funds for access to treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. Finally, I want to welcome the additional support for youth, community and housing security measures in north Belfast. Those are features of the Supplementary Estimates that I believe are valuable and that underline that the Assembly is working for the people of Northern Ireland.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
I am afraid that it goes downhill from there. There are areas of general concern in the document. Mr Close described that well when he spoke of being "blinded by the science". Every Member has mentioned the highly complex procedure that they have been asked to comment on this afternoon — the monitoring, the Supplementary Estimates, the inclusion of Executive programme funds, and the new resource approach. All are highly complex. Every Member will echo my appeal to the Minister to adopt a much more user-friendly approach to reduce the complexity of those issues, and to make the process much more accessible and transparent, not only to ourselves but to members of the public. That is vital if we are to move forward in that area.
Given the figures, certain Departments appear to be getting their sums right, yet others appear to be getting their sums badly wrong. I would appreciate some explanation for that. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Department of the Environment are two Departments that have not asked for any additional funding. I assume that they are to be congratulated on getting their sums right. If that is incorrect, I would appreciate an explanation. With new resource accounting, the Department for Regional Development must account for roads. I appreciate the Minister of Finance and Personnel’s explanation of that in his opening statement. Health is obviously a crisis-led issue that I shall deal with later.
We assume that the Department of Finance and Personnel would surely get its sums right, as opposed to any other, as it is in the lead role in that area. However, that Department has asked for an additional £33 million because it did not get its sums right. I want that explained. That sum includes £19 million for pension payments and lump-sum benefits. The Department of Education and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety also have sections on pensions and lump-sum benefits, but those Departments are not asking for additional money for those purposes. Am I to assume that civil servants are more in need of that additional money than teachers or nurses? I would appreciate an explanation of that, and of the Department of Finance and Personnel’s mathematical skills in particular.
During Question Time, I asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel about the reduction, by many millions of pounds, of funding under Peace I, which the report mentions, and whether European moneys have been returned to Brussels as a result of underspend. In his opening statement, the Minister guaranteed that that money will not go back to Brussels. I would appreciate hearing that again and again.
I shall go into more detail and cover each Department as it appears in the report. First, I turn to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Dr Paisley highlighted the money that is to be spent on animal health, animal disease and compensation. I especially want to look at the £3·5 million compensation paid out for brucellosis cases. The Minister is surely aware that the Public Accounts Committee is looking into that. The Committee has certain serious concerns about the brucellosis compensation and how it works. I underline that concern.
I have not numbered the page to which I am about to refer, so I cannot quote the exact wording. However, I think that I am right in saying that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is looking for an additional £500,000 for what are called legal costs and consultancy fees for work on the introduction of the euro. That obviously fascinated me. Has that money already been spent? If so, how was it spent in advising the public about the introduction of the euro? Has the money yet to be spent? I would certainly welcome it if that were the case, but I want to know what will happen to that money when it becomes available.
Moving to page 82 of the document, there are some concerns about the Department for Employment and Learning. In particular — and I imagine that having come from that Department the Minister well knows the subject — point (xii) states that New Deal provision is being reduced by some £5 million. I would appreciate an explanation of that. Long-term unemployment is a serious issue here, so should the Department’s strategic planning for tackling it not be better, with staff in place who could understand and deal with the backlog of some 7,000 applicants?
With regard to Health, Social Services and Public Safety on page 94, my concern relates to a £10 million additional provision towards reducing the deficits of health and social services trusts. I understand that this is the first time such provision has been seen, and we voice our alarm at it. What is it? Does it involve GP fundholders or practices? An explanation would be appreciated.
Another concern is the £4·87 million increased provision
"to meet further Criminal Negligence settlements and to increase spending on the Northern Ireland Drugs Strategy;"
Why is that needed? I would appreciate further detail.
Page 142 deals with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. What struck me there was the decrease in provision by £105,000
"reflecting the transfer of resources for victims to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety."
Why is money being moved from the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety? Does the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister no longer have a budget for victims? Has its responsibility for victims been removed? What exactly happens to that money? Why is £105,000 being transferred, when the Budget provision is £150,000? An explanation would be appreciated.
Finally, the Assembly itself is dealt with on page 152. In respect of increased provision, I should appreciate a breakdown of the request for £1·4 million in additional funding for
"capital charges and depreciation following the revaluation of existing assets and the purchase of additional assets."
Some £90,000 of the £1·39 million is needed in cash, and I would appreciate a breakdown of Assembly expenditure in that area.
That completes my list of concerns. We went through the document with a fine toothcomb, and it was important to make those points.
To conclude, I agree with Mr Close that the knee-jerk, crisis-in-management approach to Budgets is inappropriate. Such adjustments and shifting about undoubtedly point to a greater need for a strategic approach to budgetary provision.
I repeat some figures that I used in the debate on the regional transport strategy last week. The 12,000 road traffic accidents, casualties and deaths per year in Northern Ireland cost the economy £450 million per year. Those figures must be mentioned on the Floor of the Assembly. I do not agree with Mr Close that money is scarce, but the lack of strategic provision is. Why do we spend time on crisis management, picking people out of the river, when it would be better to put someone upstream to stop them jumping in in the first place?

Mr Robert McCartney: I rise entirely mindful that nothing that I might say, or indeed anything that anyone who appears to be vaguely critical of the proposals might say, will have the slightest effect. Come the vote, the marshalled ranks of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP will ensure that the motions are carried.
We heard two interesting speeches from the previous two contributors. However, they were interesting in entirely different ways. Mr Close addressed some of the fundamental issues that relate to the governance of Northern Ireland; Ms Morrice gave a virtuoso performance in the art of financial and political nit-picking. Of course, one can go through their accounts and pick up this, that and the other thing, but the major issues must be addressed.
In financial and governance terms, Northern Ireland is a total mess. As a member of the electorate said to me recently, the Assembly appears to be a sort of theme park. It is a Disneyland, in which the political classes of Northern Ireland can play.
As far as the financial background of the governance of Northern Ireland is concerned, the fundamental mistake was made when those major parties involved in negotiating the Belfast Agreement failed to extract from the British Government a substantial contribution, amounting to billions of pounds, to address the shortfall in infrastructure that had occurred in the previous 10, 20 or, as has been suggested by some, 30 years. That shortfall was believed to be in the region of £9 billion.
One lot was so interested in getting a devolved Assembly in order to get its hands on the levers of power that it entirely ignored that shortfall. The other lot was so interested in getting what it believed to be the extracting of transitional institutions for a united Ireland that it did not address the problem either.
The result, and the major financial problem with which the Assembly must cope, is how, on a limited budget, it can maintain the day-to-day financial demands and requirements without ever having the capital to address the huge deficit in infrastructure that it will never be able to address by saving money out of the annual operational costs in the block grant.
Take, for example, some of the problems in the Health Service to which Mr Close referred. Members know about the dreadful state of the orthopaedic services, paediatric services and cardiac units in Northern Ireland. It is not simply a question of pumping money for additional running cost into those institutions. Many of them do not have the appropriate capital investment in their infrastructure to deliver. I know of the recent case of a patient — not a National Health Service patient, but a BUPA patient. He was a senior figure in the accountancy world who had advised Governments; he was once the chairperson of a health trust. According to his cardiologist, he required cardiac surgery within seven days.
The earliest that the surgery could be performed in Northern Ireland, even if he were to pay for it, was in two and a half months’ time. The surgery was supposed to be performed within seven days. The cardiac surgeon advised him that he might have had to wait two years if he were a National Health Service patient. The problem was the total absence of the infrastructure that would have enabled cardiac surgeons, if they were available, to carry out the operation.
Mr Close gave a litany of defaults in the orthopaedic service. Many of our major orthopaedic units have suspended all elective operations for hip replacements for the elderly and other remedial surgery. There is no money for those.
The motion gives an estimated figure of £574,419,000, which is based, presumably, on 45% of what will be required for the full year. The cost of administering Government through the Assembly and the 10 Departments over the coming year will probably be in the region of £1·2 billion. Upwards of 10% of the entire block grant will be spent on administration — on the additional cost of 10 Departments, which are not designated as such on the basis of any economic approach or on grounds of efficiency or effectiveness. There are 10 Departments because a cobbled-together political arrangement required 10 Departments. The money will be spent not only on the additional cost of those Departments but on the additional costs of the Departments’ liaising with each other, and on the organisation of a traumatised and wrecked Civil Service, whose staff have oscillated from old Departments to new Departments. There is a whole range of additional costs. It costs approximately £1·2 billion to run this place.
Mr Close mentioned bureaucracy and increased government. None of the quangos, which we were promised would go when the tier of Government represented by the Assembly was established, have gone. All we have done is multiply the bureaucracy, the furnishings, the deep-pile plush carpets and reserved spaces, and create a bureaucracy that is stifling the governance of the Province.
In addition to the 26 councils and umpteen quangos, we have the biggest quango of all — here — a quango that is going to absorb in the region of £45 million in the coming year. Not only is this Assembly a quango by its very existence, the number of Members it contains cannot conceivably be justified on the basis of any rational comparison with any of the other devolved institutions in the United Kingdom. It certainly cannot be justified when compared with Scotland, which has far greater powers and a wider range of tax-raising abilities than we have. The Scottish Parliament has 129 Members for 5·5 million people. In addition to our 26 local councils, we have 108 Members for 1·6 million people. Wales has 60 Members for 3 million people. So much of the misgovernment of Northern Ireland has emanated from basing decisions, not on what was best for the governance of Northern Ireland, but on what was the most suitable political playpen for the political classes and on how the greatest possible number could participate in it.
However, we must not just look to the Health Service — there is also Mr Empey’s Department. Mr Empey is presiding over a financial empire that is in total decline. One need only read the brief for tomorrow’s debate on job losses in East Antrim to see what that Department is doing. It is estimated that there will be 4,000 job losses in that area.
Did the Department of Agriculture, for example, do a great deal to rescue the pork industry? It certainly minimised the effects of foot-and-mouth disease, aided by the fact that we are separated from the mainland by 21 miles of water. However, as Dr Paisley pointed out, what has it done to help the agriculture industry?
This Province has perhaps the best grammar school system in the UK, with an enormous number of children from both communities in Northern Ireland going to our own distinguished universities and to some of the most distinguished universities on the mainland and abroad. That system is about to be butchered on the shrine of some form of misguided political correctness, some sort of equality issue that states that the world is equal. It will be butchered, not on the basis of equality of opportunity, which we would all endorse, but on the basis of reducing every opportunity to some form of equality pap that everyone can ingest.
When we examine the Assembly’s function and what it was designed to do — namely, to provide good governance for all the people in Northern Ireland — and consider the money that has been provided and that is being used, not in relation to some aspiration to maintain the Union or any equal aspiration to create Irish unity, we find that it is failing miserably because the very basis of governance is directed to fulfilling the ambitions of the political class in this Disney theme park that passes for Government.

Ms Jane Morrice: Earlier I pointed out some things that are valuable, such as provision of disabled access to schools, energy efficiency in schools, access to rheumatoid arthritis treatment, help for north Belfast and youth and community work. Does the Member agree that those good works show the value of what we are doing here?

Mr Robert McCartney: All those issues, while important and valuable in themselves, are absolutely peripheral and marginal to the essential governance of Northern Ireland.
What are the main services that people in a modern society look to their Government to provide? Health, for one — the Health Service is a mess. That is acknowledged by everyone, whether Unionist, Nationalist or any other variety of politician. It is the worst mess in the United Kingdom. Our waiting lists are 50% longer than those in the rest of the UK, where waiting lists are already considered to be a disgrace.
We are on the verge of wrecking a perfectly good education system. I am not talking about the abolition of the 11-plus — I believe that that needs to be looked at.
I am not talking about preserving grammar schools just because that is where middle-class children are educated. I received such an education, and I was certainly not middle class, as were many others. Instead of fiddling about waging some sort of class war on education, whether we are in Sinn Féin, the Ulster Unionist Party, or any other party, we should be looking at how we can improve that part of our educational system that is not functioning as it should be, rather than taking a hatchet to that part which is good. That is not happening because political battles are being fought about other issues.
Value for money is very much the order of the day. Is the public getting value for money from this Assembly? The Assembly was supposed to provide more accessible, more sensitive, more effective, more accountable Government — it is doing none of those things. All the major services that the people expect a Government to provide have got far worse instead of better under devolved Government. Now this is not necessarily an attack on devolved Government as an abstract philosophy; it is an attack upon devolved Government as practised in this Assembly, and based upon a system which is not democratic at all. [Interruption].

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. I cannot allow conversations to develop.

Mr Robert McCartney: For example, look at the cost of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for last year, which was £35·5 million, give or take a few thousand — only marginally less than the cost of running the entire Assembly. What does the office administer, and what does it do? Money is being wasted on maladministration here. I see an hon Member smiling. Perhaps he would not be smiling if he was one of the 136 elderly folk who cannot get a community care package because of maladministration. Bed blocking costs £1,500 to £2,000 a time, but if a fair sum was paid to private nursing care, the cost could be a third of that price — but that is quango control.
The Assembly has done absolutely nothing to attack the cost of bureaucracy in administration and so reform its finances. We had a nicely delivered speech from the Minister of Finance and Personnel, but was it his speech, or was it the speech of the army of bureaucrats that are preparing everything? This is not devolved Government — this place is a bureaucrats’ paradise. Nothing in that speech addressed the sort of problems that Mr Close mentioned. We need fundamental reform of the financial system and better use of the funds available to us. I am not an admirer of devolution — certainly not in the form of this Assembly. However, we have devolution, and I am a democrat. Regardless of party, we should look very carefully at how devolution, as practised in Northern Ireland, is serving the people. There is little in these Estimates to indicate that it is doing that efficiently.

Mr John Kelly: I hesitate to follow Bob McCartney, but much of what he said about how we are delivering, or trying to deliver and perhaps not succeeding, is correct. However, I want to take up his last point about a public administration review. In January 1999, we were told that this public review would be undertaken. Three years later there is not one quango fewer, not one trust fewer and not one board fewer.
No Department can plan anything until the matter of public administration has been resolved. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Education cannot be blamed for all the ills. However, they do get the blame; and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, in particular, is blamed for the waiting lists, the lack of orthopaedic surgery and the lack of cardiac surgery.

Mr Robert McCartney: The Member will acknowledge that in my speech or my criticism I never mentioned the Minister once.

Mr John Kelly: I am not suggesting that the Member did. I am merely saying that until the review of public administration has been sorted out, every Department will be hampered in how it advances its particular agenda. That is all I was saying.
The Member is right when he says that we are overburdened in comparison to Scotland or Wales. However, we must take into account the special circumstances and the fact that this Assembly came into being to resolve a political question rather than an economic or a social one — although we are attempting to address those along the way.
At the core of this — and this was touched on — is the lack of collective responsibility and of a concerted approach at the centre to resolve pressing social, economic, health, education and housing problems. The fact that a public administration review has been taking place since January 1999 without having advanced one iota indicates the lack of collective responsibility for resolving these matters.
Certainly, there may be difficulties with one party, which is prepared and happy to live off the largesse of the Good Friday Agreement without bearing the responsibilities that derive from the agreement, a party whose members put their fingers and thumbs into the political pie of the Good Friday Agreement and pull out the political plums without bearing their share of collective responsibility.
During the last big debate about health in this Chamber, it was said over and over again that health was being starved of money. Seamus Close said that Mark Durkan acknowledged that health was the priority in the Programme for Government when he introduced his Budget. Yet health still remains to be prioritised for funding. During the Budget debate Mark Durkan said that what he was giving to health would allow the health programme merely not to stand still. Bob McCartney and other Members have made it clear that it must do more than not stand still. If we care, if our function is to meet the social needs of the people whom we are elected to serve, health must be at the very centre of how we deliver our responsibilities. If the Executive cannot get their act together on their collective responsibility to health, then how can they get their act together in dealing with other responsibilities?
The Northern Ireland Confederation for Health and Social Services (NICON), which is at the core of the Health Service, has already indicated that the Health Service requires an extra £100 million a year, or £1 billion over 10 years. That sum is necessary to allow the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to plan a strategy that can deliver at the point of need and that can address the serious shortcomings in all the disciplines in the medical services, such as orthopaedics, cardiac surgery and cancer in all its manifestations. The Health Service is badly behind in its infrastructure and is unable to address long waiting lists and delays in dealing with cancer. We have had and continue to have —

Mr Eddie McGrady: The Member raises an interesting point that I referred to earlier. He said that the Ministers in the Executive must get their act together. I presume that he means that they have not yet got their act together. Secondly, is it not the case that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, as other Ministers, agreed with the Minister of Finance and Personnel the budget for her Department? Does the Member confirm that? In other words, each Minister takes responsibility for what he or she has already agreed.

Mr John Kelly: Yes, but in attempting to address the Health Service, not in the short term or on a day-to-day basis —

Mr Eddie McGrady: Long term.

Mr John Kelly: Yes, the long-term aspect has not been addressed. As a priority in the Programme for Government, the Executive undertook to address the long-term ability to deal with the shortcomings in the Health Service. If any Minister goes to the Executive to plead for their particular area of responsibility, they will get only what they ask for. There needs to be a commitment at the centre of Government, not just one Department, to this area that affects everyone; it affects the social, economic and health well-being of the community. There should be a collective responsibility in addressing that issue and the obvious shortcomings in that particular Department. That has not been done.
In their Programme for Government, the Executive have failed to prioritise health and in the collective responsibility to address health. It is clear to most people that that has not been addressed. If it had been seriously addressed, then we would not have the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ and all health disciplines continually complaining about a lack of funding. The sad fact is that the people at the coalface, those who are most anxious to see an end to waiting lists in whatever discipline, are those who are suffering the most.
It is not good enough to suggest that a budget that is brought before the Executive satisfies a particular Minister. It is not the responsibility of one Minister. The Executive are responsible for addressing health issues and the way in which they are failing the Health Service. I will not make a plea on behalf of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Everyone is aware of the state of health provision in our community.
There is no point in tying the hands of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and then sniping from the sidelines. Health is a priority, so let us get the funding right. Let us get on with the review of public administration that we have been waiting for, and let us allow the Health Minister to get on with her job.

Mr George Savage: I have listened carefully to Members’ comments. Some interesting statistics were quoted.
As a member of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, I have heard how much money is needed to deal with brucellosis, tuberculosis and other diseases — the figures are shocking. What could we do with that money if we had it today? Veterinary scientists who know as much about the matter as some of our departmental specialists have asked me whether the vaccination of all farm animals has been considered. All two- or three-day-old cattle must be vaccinated against various diseases. The need to vaccinate animals becomes clearer every day, but insufficient thought has been given to the matter. The millions of pounds that are spent at the moment are a drain of resources from the country. That money could be put to better use.

Mr Eddie McGrady: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is the Assembly quorate?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Yes.

Mr George Savage: I listened to the questions to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety today, and I asked her an important question. I also attended an event at the Long Gallery today during which cancer and the work of Macmillan Cancer Relief were discussed. I do not want to compare the two discussions. The number of doctors per capita in Northern Ireland by comparison to the equivalent figures for other countries does not bear thinking about. It almost seems as if people here do not care.
An environmental point that was not made is that if nothing is done about the pollution of this country we will gradually poison ourselves. It used to be possible to use water from a well, but that is no longer the case, because everything is at risk of pollution.
I hope that the Departments get their act together. As a member of the Agriculture Committee, I would have liked to have had the opportunity to propose how much money is needed for specific purposes. Although I do not miss many meetings, I did not have the opportunity to make my case. In December 2000 we put forward a case for an early retirement scheme and long-term low-interest loans for the agriculture sector. Not enough serious thought has been put into those issues. However, bearing in mind what is happening in various sectors, a time will come when the people who come after us will say that we had our opportunity and did not take it.
Mr Close and Ms Morrice talked about the number of accidents on our roads. What have we been doing to counteract that? What cost do you put on a life? People have talked about how much it costs to run the Assembly. What is the cost of saving one life, five lives, or ten lives? It is bound to bear fruit eventually. There are many things that the Assembly could be taking a greater interest in.
Look at the size of the budget we have to discuss — and see how few Members are sitting in the House today. Those who are not here should be ashamed of themselves. I do not know where they are. Ministers — with their big Departments — should be here today to fight their corner. They should show more interest. They need not leave it to the Back-Benchers to do it for them. That will not happen. I will not take the blame for people who should be making more of an effort to debate the matters that come before us.
We have talked about the many issues that face this country at present. Mr John Kelly pointed to the three main questions — health, standards of living and food protection. We can do something about those matters. With all due respect to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and her Department, it would not matter who held that post. The Minister and the Department must address the crisis. There is a large backlog — and we have had a mild winter. I dread to think what might have happened in our hospitals had the winter been a rough one.
One of the big hospitals — Craigavon Area Hospital — is in my constituency. Problems are emerging there week in, week out. If that hospital had the facilities and the nursing manpower, it could do something about the existing problems. The nurses there are heavily overworked, and the hospital does not have the facilities to cope with the number of patients coming through its doors. More money should be put into recruiting young doctors, because there is a scarcity of them. Doctors will not come into the Health Service unless they are going to be able to provide proper care and attention. When you consider the challenges they face and the hours they have to work you cannot blame them for not going down the Health Service route. Dr Adamson, who is sitting behind me, is a very experienced doctor, and I am sure he will bear out what I am saying.
I wish that Ministers would take Committees more into their confidence and allow them to have a greater input into determining budgets. We must be realistic: if we are not, then the work of the last three or four years will have been in vain.

Mr John Dallat: There are some technical matters that I would like to address, the first of which relates to the Northern Ireland Audit Office spring Supplementary Estimates for 2001-02. The Audit Committee has statutory responsibility for agreeing and presenting the Audit Office Estimate, and as Chairperson, I am speaking in support of its bid for a Supplementary Estimate of £49,000. That amount was included in its original submission to the Audit Committee for its 2001-02 funding. However, for technical reasons, it was not possible for the money to be included in the Main Estimates, and it was agreed with the Department of Finance and Personnel that it should be provided by a Supplementary Estimate. The Audit Committee has agreed the amount requested in the Supplementary Estimate, and I commend it for the approval of the Assembly.
The second matter concerns the Northern Ireland Audit Office Vote on Account for 2002-03. The amounts requested for the Vote on Account are £2,096,000 in cash and £2,320,000 in resources. The Audit Committee will soon meet with the Comptroller and Auditor General to discuss his office’s spending plans for 2002-03. In the meantime, I am satisfied that the amounts have been calculated using the standard formulae, and I commend them to the Assembly for approval.
Now that that formality is out of the way, I wish to remove my Chairperson’s hat and speak as a Member of the Assembly — [Interruption].

Mr Sammy Wilson: and make yourself more money.

Mr John Dallat: I am just regulating the technicalities. The budget of approximately £4·5 million is a huge sum of money that must be spent in the way in which it was intended. There must be no flaws in the procurement procedures, and it must be clearly shown that the public gets excellent value for money. The task of verifying that money is properly spent falls to the Northern Ireland Audit Office under the control of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
I want to place on record my total confidence in the Audit Office and its staff. The reports that the office has produced have enabled the Public Accounts Committee to scrutinise public spending in a way that was not possible under direct rule. The Public Accounts Committee has tackled its job without fear or favour, and it deserves the support of the entire Assembly. I am sorry that it does not always receive that support. The reports are, without exception, balanced and fair. I have left it to others to express concerns about health, education, agriculture and other issues that have been discussed.
I want to use my limited time to highlight the absolute need to ensure that all Government Departments and non-departmental Government bodies play their part in rebuilding this economy that has been so damaged under direct rule. During that time bad practices crept in, accountability was less than acceptable, and on some occasions a degree of arrogance evolved when money and, indeed, people were being dealt with. Reports prepared by the Audit Office are agreed and signed off by the accounting officer responsible for the Department to which the report relates. There is a genuine wish that reports are not delayed before they are signed off. It is fundamental that the reports are published quickly, so that the Public Accounts Committee has the opportunity to scrutinise them with the Comptroller and Auditor General before arranging a public hearing at which the relevant Department’s accounting officer has an opportunity to answer questions. That is fundamental to change for the better.
I believe that I have the full support of the Assembly when I say that Members will take it seriously if they discover that reports are held up unnecessarily. If that were to become widespread, it would cause enormous damage to the work of the Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. The problem is not widespread by any means, but there is concern that a report relating to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board has not been signed off in order that it could be published this week. As I have said, that concerns me and, no doubt, others.
The Minister recently undertook to ensure, as far as is practical, that reports are not unduly held up. I draw that fact to the Assembly’s attention in the belief that the current delay will be brief.

Rev William McCrea: As Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment, I note the Department of the Environment’s overall planned expenditure rise of 10% to £110·9 million for 2002-03.
Members of the House will recall that my Committee successfully fought to restore the proposed £2 million that was cut from the local resources grant. The cut would have applied to the 16 poorest councils. That would have been a major injustice that would have directly contradicted the Executive’s targeting social need policy. It is interesting to note that the proposal to cut district council resources arose because of inescapable new pressures — some £2 million — on EU international obligations. My Committee examined the nature of those new pressures and fully supported the priority that the Department attached to them. For example, there was pressure applied to advance long overdue action on waste management. I shall return to that subject later.
I shall explain to the House what my Committee did to scrutinise the Department of the Environment’s budget proposals for 2002-03. We obtained the full breakdown of the Department’s discretionary expenditure of £14·6 million, having set aside inescapable expenditure such as salaries, EU obligations, local government derating and the resources grant. We questioned senior officials to justify that expenditure, having categorised it by priority — high, medium and low — and to explain the consequences of not meeting each item of expenditure. We scrutinised the Department’s potential asset sales, the scope to increase the use of receipts to fund baseline expenditure and the potential to fast-track EU compliance expenditure for 2002-03 to utilise moneys being surrendered in this financial year.
I noticed that some Members in the House feel that their Committees have not been able to get enough information from Ministers or from Departments. If they accept such a situation, that says more about them than about the Departments, as I assure the House that when my Committee desires to have information, we are not put off easily.
The Committee concluded that there was little scope or flexibility in the Department’s budget to make savings or switch resources. It is essential to protect the sizeable budget element, to implement EU obligations, and to maintain and build on much needed services, such as planning services, where there is a clear increase in demand. In the light of the Committee’s conclusion, and the reality of emerging EU international obligation budget pressures, I ask the new Minister of Finance and Personnel, along with his Colleague the Minister of the Environment, to consider ring-fencing the provision for local government services and the EU international obligation provision within the Department of the Environment’s budget.
District councils are at the forefront of many important initiatives under way to protect our environment that link directly to EU Directives. For example, waste management plans and the local air quality schemes are important issues. Therefore, to ring-fence the local government budget would provide the financial stability to allow councils to implement quickly that essential work, which would benefit all the people of Northern Ireland. My Committee has taken a particular interest in recent months in getting the three regional waste management plans funded and operational.
We questioned representatives from the three groups and also departmental officials on two separate occasions in an endeavour to find ways to hasten their work and to help them to meet their EU obligations. Members of the Committee welcomed the long-awaited launch of the plans last week, and I assure the House that my Committee will continue its monitoring and will do whatever is necessary to ensure that those plans are delivered quickly.
The Committee was alarmed to learn that £1 million of the Department’s budget for waste management was surrendered in October 2001. Having pressed the Department of the Environment and the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Committee has received written assurances that any shortfall in the waste management budget for 2002-03 will be favourably treated in in-year bids, bearing in mind that the work is essential to meet EU obligations. The Committee was reminded of the importance of that work last week, when it was advised that failure to meet the EU Directive on waste management could incur United Kingdom fines of £400,000 a day at the end of the year. The Northern Ireland Executive Budget would contribute directly to such fines if Northern Ireland failed to implement the Directive.
The Committee recognises the strong case for increasing expenditure in some other Departments but makes the point that a sizeable increase in the £111 million allocated to the Department of the Environment’s baseline would be marginal in the Northern Ireland block of over £6 billion. That increase would, however, have a significant impact on the protection of the environment — a Cinderella during direct rule. The Assembly should consider allocating proper funding to secure and sustain Northern Ireland’s primary asset before it is too late.
I shall remove the hat of the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment and speak on other issues.
Mr John Kelly stated that we were overburdened and that additional resources were necessary and quick action was needed on the public administration review. Coming from Sinn Féin those are interesting remarks. It was to please Sinn Féin party sponsors that the Assembly was overburdened, in relation to the size of Northern Ireland, with 108 elected Members. It was to placate Sinn Féin’s greed that 10 Departments were formed instead of six. That was to allow Sinn Féin to get its greedy hands on two ministries. It was also to placate the idealism of so-called Sinn Féin that over £50 million is being spent on cross-border bodies. All of this was at the insistence of Sinn Féin and its fellow travellers. It is rather rich, to say the least, for Sinn Féin to lecture the Assembly about the need for allocating money to Departments for which it has responsibility.
There is no doubt that people’s health is a priority, and the House has recognised that in allocating resources in the past, and I trust that it will do so in the future. I have said it before, and I shall say it again — it is not simply the allocation of resources that makes an effective Department. One of the major catastrophes of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is not just lack of funding in the past but that the Department is without leadership. The ship is rudderless because the Minister is totally ineffective, without vision or effort.
We have a crisis in the Health Service. Mr Close mentioned the British Medical Association. Much of the Department’s work has been dictated by various Royal College instructions and diktats, rather than by a consideration of the whole picture and the needs of acute services throughout the community.
For example, the elderly feel forsaken. We had several debates on that issue in the Chamber. We allocated money for nursing care for the elderly in nursing homes. However, we have been told that the elderly will continue to be drained of their savings until October. It will be another eight to ten months before the will of the Assembly will be implemented.
It was the Assembly’s will that the Department should take the responsibility for nursing costs. The Department will not take that responsibility immediately. The Minister tells us that the elderly will have to wait until October. They will have to pay for their own care, and their resources will be drained away while the Assembly’s resolution that the elderly should be relieved of that financial burden is set aside until October.
I have heard the fanciful statements about who is to blame. New Labour blames the Conservatives for everything. Certainly, there are problems for which the Conservatives must carry the blame. However, we have had direct rule under the Conservatives and under Labour. The lack of resources is the responsibility of the Labour Government as well as of the former Conservative Government.
Recently the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ published an article showing that six years ago, under direct Conservative rule, there were 22,000 nurses in Northern Ireland. However, under the Assembly and the Minister there are 16,000 nurses. Surely there is something wrong. It cannot be blamed on the then Conservative Government, because the figure of 22,000 refers to the period when the Conservatives left office. The lower figure refers to the period under the new Labour Administration and then the Assembly. If the figures are correct — and they have been in the public arena — the Department of Health ought to hang its head in shame.
This is why our nurses are overworked and why many of them are at the end of their personal resources and suffering health breakdowns. That decline did not happen under the Conservative Government, behind which the Minister seems to hide, but under her stewardship. The bottom line is that the Minister is not capable of doing the job.
If we want more resources, we should look at the 10 Departments, the constant stream of finance that goes to the cross-border bodies, and the number of elected representatives in this Chamber. There are quangos and a public administration review that does not seem to get off the ground. Many people heralded that the Assembly would grasp the quangos and the public administration by the neck and arrest the decline in our public services.
That has not been the reality. We have gone in the opposite direction. The stream of finance to the quangos flows on; money flows into more quangos and cross- border bodies, which are not answerable to this Chamber of elected representatives.
The increase in finances being pumped into the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister must be examined. Resources must be scrutinised carefully in order to determine the purpose for which they are being used.
Let us consider the roads. I appreciate that the Minister is right in relation to finances for particular schemes. However, the Minister cannot evade his responsibility in relation to the infrastructure. Unless money is allocated to the Department for Regional Development, the need to enhance the infrastructure throughout the Province cannot become a reality. Members agree that transport — roads and rail — has in the past been a disaster with regard to finances. Transport was put on the back-burner, as were many other things. However, that is no excuse for the Assembly not providing for, or meeting, the challenge.
I mentioned the Magherafelt bypass. The bypass would not only enhance the economic future of my own district of Magherafelt but also that of Cookstown, which is where all traffic must go in order to reach the seaports and airports. The constant blockages and the time wasted sitting in traffic in Magherafelt are detrimental to the economic development of the Cookstown district as well as Magherafelt. Adequate finances must be made available, and that is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance and Personnel.
Farming has been mentioned already. I reiterate the demand for a retirement scheme that will allow farmers to retire with dignity. Many of the problems facing that industry, more so than any other, have not come about as a result of the irresponsibility or neglect of the farming community in Northern Ireland, which has produced primary goods and given us its best. Many of the challenges that have arisen, such as BSE and other problems in the pig and sheep sectors, have been out of the control of farmers. Farmers looked to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for guidance. They were given guidance, to which they adhered. Unfortunately, farmers paid the price for listening to that advice.
A retirement scheme would allow farmers to retire with dignity and honour. However, there must be a young entrants scheme so that the young people of the Province’s rural community can see a future and a vision for farming. If Northern Ireland’s farmers do not provide food, farmers in some other part of the EU will do so instead. Why should our farmers have their backs to the wall because of negativity in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and in the Administration?
Farmers are being assisted elsewhere. When Northern Ireland’s pig farmers had their backs to the wall, the Department was unwilling to help them. We were told that EU regulations would not allow that. France is in the EU, and it was one of the guiding fathers of those regulations, yet the French Government were able to help their farmers. The French Government provided resources for their farmers and bailed them out when their backs were against the wall. Ministers told me that EU rules could not be broken. Of course, France and the Irish Republic can break the rules, but Northern Ireland cannot. In the end, those farmers who were supported by their Government managed to stay in the field.
They continued and, in actual fact, their financial position has been enhanced. It is sad to say that our Government let many farmers go to the wall. It is also sad to say that many of the banks and finance houses in this country that goaded the farmers into debt turned on them when their backs were against the wall and looked for their pound of flesh, rather than assisting them.
I want to speak on a subject as an elected representative for my constituency. It is very difficult to get through even as many as eight questions in Question Time, especially questions on health. A person speaks in gibberish and then in English, and that is given as an excuse for not answering questions. Fewer questions are answered because it takes double the time.
The Minister of Education, in reply to a question, talked much today about our children being equal. I invite any Member of the Assembly to visit schools in Magherafelt and see if our children are equal. There is a primary school and a secondary school in Magherafelt in the state, or controlled, sector that are in deplorable conditions. In the maintained sector, millions of pounds have been spent in St Mary’s. Millions of pounds have also been spent, and are currently being spent, in St Pius’s. In the person’s own constituency, however, Magherafelt High School is in a deplorable condition.
Children are not equal. Protestant children in that constituency are being discriminated against. We are compiling the figures, because they will speak for themselves. When equality of treatment for all schoolchildren is paraded as a supposed ideal, I, as a public representative, must ensure that equality of treatment for all schoolchildren — in the controlled, maintained and independent sectors — will be a reality and that discrimination against the state or controlled sector will be brought to an end.
All is not well in education — far from it. Even in this debate I trust that, as an elected representative, I have the opportunity of blowing the trumpet with a very certain sound to ensure that we have action rather than pious words.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: We know, as the wider public knows, that the resources from the Treasury are not sufficient to meet the needs of this society. One of the few ways of raising funds for health, education, roads and all other services that have been mentioned today that are needed by people in our constituencies is through the rates. Although no one in the House likes to raise the issue of rates, realistically we must depend on rates to raise much needed revenue. It is, of course, essential to develop innovative means of funding and efficiency so that we can reduce our dependence upon rates.
I welcome the Minister’s statement. I am very aware of the pressures faced by the Executive in meeting demands with limited resources. As a member of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, I am heartened by the statement. It is clear that the new Minister is as committed to making those funds go a long way as his predecessor was. It is important that we support and approve the actions of the Minister of Finance and Personnel. His job is a difficult and complex one, and he is doing it fairly and professionally. However, it is insufficient just to offer congratulations from these Benches.
All Members, and particularly those in the Executive and the Committees, must work ceaselessly in pursuit of the goals of everyone in our community. We must be watchful of expenditures that do not meet existing priorities. We must continually question the use of resources in every Department and ask if such use represents value for money. The pressures on the Health Service have been discussed today and have been recognised by the Minister and the Executive. In the 2001 Budget, the whole allocation of £27·8 million for Northern Ireland announced in the pre-Budget statement went on health, together with an immediate cash injection of £8 million for this year. In total the amount allocated to health for the next year represents an increase of 9·7% on the current year’s provision. That must be welcomed.
It has been said before that the Health Service needs resources, but the House must be assured that funds are being spent as efficiently and effectively as possible. I, therefore, welcome the needs and effectiveness evaluations that have been undertaken in several Departments. Will the Minister tell us when those reviews will be completed?
The Minister said that the reviews of the Executive programme funds were under way. I agree with the concept of those funds; they are a sign that the new Administration is committed to using the funds in an innovative way that truly supports cross-departmental actions. In reviewing the Executive programme funds, I ask the Minister to ensure that the concept remains intact. What is the timetable for the completion of that review?
I appreciate that the Barnett formula can be misunderstood. It is not simply a case of seeking a review of the formula, with the subsequent assumption that we will receive a larger share of the block grant. Members should take into account the risk involved in pressing for a re-examination of the Barnett formula — it could end up with a negative result. I ask the Minister to address the issue in his summing-up and to outline how the Executive intend to take it forward.
I welcome the changes brought about by the monitoring process and budgets, which we decided for ourselves. Local decision-making is beginning to take effect, and we can set our own priorities. Again, everyone should welcome that.
I share some of the frustrations expressed about the process and timing of the Supplementary Estimates. The issues are difficult, and Members want to understand them fully and contribute to the process. Perhaps the Minister will consider providing a summary of the decisions or take steps to assist us in fully buying into the budgetary process.
I support the Supply resolution, and ask the House to do the same, and more, to build a resource base for the future.

Mr Sammy Wilson: At this point much of what had to be said about the general issues surrounding the allocation of resources has been said. I do not want to make a plea for special cases in areas in which I am particularly interested or which would benefit the constituency and the groupings that I represent. That plea ought to be made, but I will look first at the general concept of the debate.
Many Members spoke about the opportunity to scrutinise. Ms Lewsley said that we must work ceaselessly and be watchful of expenditure that does not meet priorities. Mr Savage wanted a bigger input into determining the Budget. I listened to special cases for health, for cutting waiting lists, for dealing with the environment, farming issues and all the other areas of disadvantage. I find it difficult to believe that Members want to have a bigger input into the Budget but also want to examine matters that should not be priorities. What priorities do they have in their minds?
How enslaved are they to their party Whips?
Is it a bigger priority to spend over £50 million on the political correctness of cross-border bodies than it is to spend the money on hospitals so that people who are hobbling about in pain can have hip replacements? Is it a bigger priority to give the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister a budget equivalent to that required to run the Assembly? The Programme for Government states that its budget should be used to
"assist the Executive in making and implementing well-informed and timely policy decisions and improving public services".
The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is allocated almost £16 million to do that. Is that really a priority? Are those things a priority in the minds of Members? Those are just a few examples.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I am sure that the Member will remember from his previous professional expertise that there is a strong argument that the significant demand for healthcare is practically infinite in the United Kingdom because it is provided free at the point of use. Can he help the House by outlining how many extra millions are necessary for healthcare? All the £50 million from the North/South bodies could be put into the health system, only to find that it makes little difference.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I am glad that the Member raised that point, because I intend to speak about resources. We could, perhaps, pump another £50 million into the Health Service and find that it is still not enough. However, even if that were the case, I should prefer to see that money put into services that affect the lives of constituents than see it go to politically correct institutions that are in place only to satisfy the demands of Sinn Féin and the SDLP.
The question of whether the Assembly has made the Administration accountable has not been asked. Either that or Members really do have a skewed sense of what is important. My Colleague Dr McCrea reminded us that we were told that there would be an assault on quangos. Quangos, to use his words, would be "grasped by the neck". They have been grasped by the neck — they have been hugged.
The two main parties in the Assembly have definitely hugged them. They could not wait to set quangos up and put some of their prime members on them. They did not want to do away with quangos; they wanted to institute more of them.
Has the Assembly addressed the way in which the costs of administration have burgeoned? It has not.
One of the reasons for that is that the Assembly’s pro-agreement parties have put in place layers of administration to suit their own political demands. Some are too afraid to upset the others and are therefore whipped into backing certain views. Their words in the House show that they are not happy that money should be spent in such a way. However, their votes in the Lobbies belie their words, because they vote for the very things that they say they oppose. This should be a significant debate — it should be a debate about priorities and resources. At the end of the debate, Members should vote according to how they have spoken. That will not happen, because they will find someone else to blame. Mr John Kelly epitomises that approach.
The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has received a big increase in resources, as Dr Birnie mentioned. Nevertheless, we are told that there is still a crisis. They used to be able to blame the Brits. There are still Members who blame direct rule, even though direct rule ended four years ago, just as the Labour Party still blames the Conservatives. Mr John Kelly has refined that approach; he no longer blames the Minister responsible, but the Executive. Someone else is always to blame. He should consider how the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has used resources. She seems more interested in employing linguists to do her interpretations than she is in employing doctors and nurses to do what patients need; yet we still hear criticism and people crying and moaning that they need more resources.
Certain areas must be addressed. I shall not say a great deal about this matter — I said that I would not make pleas for special cases. However, we must consider housing provision. I say that because I am on the Social Development Committee and have a special interest in that matter. It is wrong to think that we can rejuvenate run-down areas of Northern Ireland if we do not put money into urban regeneration, including housing. It is fair to ask for additional resources. I have not been pleading many special cases. On occasions, I have made pleas for more money for the roads network or for schools — I recently tabled a motion on the need for additional capital for school buildings. However, it is not enough continually to hold out our hands to the Exchequer and say that the Barnett formula must be improved or changed. I would dread the Exchequer’s doing that.

Mr Danny O'Connor: The Member says that it is not enough simply to hold our hands out to the Exchequer, and he spoke about people saying one thing in the Chamber and voting for another in the Lobbies. Does he recall that when an attempt was made to raise additional capital by raising the regional rate he and his Colleagues walked through the "Noes" Lobby?

Mr Sammy Wilson: It is not enough to dip our hands into the pockets of people who struggle from day to day to pay their bills and to keep their businesses going. It is not enough to pick money out of the wallets of people who are living just above the threshold of benefit support and say that we expect them to pay the bill for our folly. I have already outlined in the Assembly ways in which we could change the spending priorities that would not require us to put small businesses and vulnerable people on low or medium incomes in greater difficulty. The Member should not say that I simply walked through the "Noes" Lobby and left the problem to the Minister of Finance and Personnel.
We have suggested ways. Of course, the easy way out is to simply go along with the present pattern of expenditure and say, "Let the poor ratepayer pay for it". However, that is not an answer, and, at the end of the day, that will cause great difficulty.

Rev William McCrea: Does my hon Friend agree that it would be more honourable to tell people that they are being taxed? The SDLP suggested another form of taxation, but that was to be introduced through the back door and not in an honourable way. It is far better to be honourable and tell people that you are taxing them — then at least they will know whether to support you.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Thank you for that useful intervention.
I now turn to some of the points that Dr Birnie made. We must look for innovative ways of obtaining the additional resources needed to deliver public services. Perhaps the Assembly should be a little more innovative and should examine how current ways of delivering services could be changed to bring in additional finance.
There has been recent discussion about raising money through bonds to bring in additional revenue to deal with some of the capital and service requirements in Northern Ireland. That also requires a radical examination of how those services are delivered and whether they are delivered solely through the public sector. I have no problem with that. I believe that many people in Northern Ireland do not care whether their services are directed solely by a public body or whether they are delivered by a body at arm’s length from the public sector, which is run on a non-profit-making basis and which can draw down extra resources, provided — and this is the important thing — that they get a decent service. People are interested in the outcome; not where the input comes from. There is a range of services that we could deal with in that way.
I have heard opposition in the Assembly to PFI because it puts money in the hands of private contractors. I have no great difficulty with PFI schemes and, indeed, if more capital projects can be delivered in that way, I am quite happy to consider it.
The Assembly must look beyond dipping its hands into the pockets of the taxpayers, many of whom cannot afford it, and holding out a begging bowl to Westminster. If it can be proved through needs assessment that we are entitled to more money then we should be arguing the case. However, we cannot always rely on saying "We deserve this", whether justified or not.
The fundamental issues of the Assembly have been addressed in the debate: whether the Assembly has a mechanism which holds the Executive accountable; whether Members are so constrained by their party Whips that they do not vote in the way that they speak, and whether we are prepared to address the radical issue of how we obtain additional resources beyond the two main ways that we addressed the issue in the past, in order to deliver some of the services that are much needed.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Before I call the Minister to respond, I would like to make an observation that I have made at other times in the House — that it is unfortunate that Members who have asked questions of the Minister do not have the courtesy to remain when he responds.

Dr Sean Farren: I have listened with great interest to the points that have been raised by Members, and I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
The debate has been used to make general and particular points relevant to the Budget. Many Members have used it for wider purposes, rehearsing well-worn arguments on the nature of our political institutions and their origin — but that is the nature of such debates. In my response, I shall attempt to focus on those matters that directly pertain to issues raised in my introductory remarks.
Today’s debate provides a further valuable opportunity to hear and consider Members’ concerns about our spending plans. This is only the second occasion on which we have presented Supplementary Estimates to the Assembly. In many areas, our budgetary process is in the early stages of development and is still evolving. Undoubtedly, it will evolve taking note of the recommendations and points made by Members in their contributions. I am no guardian of the kind of status quo that some allege we have, and I share with Members the desire and the conviction that ran through many of the contributions — ensuring that the Government are efficient and effective in meeting the needs of all our people.
The spring Supplementary Estimates draw together the spending decisions made by the Executive during the year. Some Members seem to be approaching these Supply resolutions as if they were being presented for their consideration for the very first time. Of course, that is not the case. We have been through these issues in statements on the monitoring rounds and in the considerable period allocated to the consideration of the Budget before it was adopted before Christmas. That period allowed all Members, both in Plenary and in Committee, considerable scrutiny and consideration of the priorities in today’s Supply resolutions. I remind Members that these same issues have been before them for consideration in much the same terms as they are being presented today. Members should not speak as if this were the first time.
Several points and questions were raised during the debate, and I shall cover as many as I can now. Other, more detailed, questions, such as those posed by Ms Morrice, will require a more considered response later. Mr Molloy, Mr Close and others again raised concerns that people have not had enough time to consider the Supplementary Estimates; I have already dealt with that. I want to reaffirm what Mr Close said: we continue to look for improvements in scrutinising the spending allocations and the Estimates. I want to address the point fairly and frankly. There will never be much more time for Committee and Assembly scrutiny at this stage of the cycle, which falls tightly between decisions on December monitoring and the need for completing the approved process before the end of the year.
However, I reiterate that there is much more time to examine the issues, at several stages. First, the most important stage in each cycle is the autumn, when the Assembly can consider the issues that arise between the draft Budget and the revised Budget. Secondly, there is a considerable period between now and the debate on the Main Estimates in June. The motion covers an amount on account for 2002-03; the Main Estimates will simply complete that process in more detail.
Committees can, and should, take up issues relating to the Estimates for 2002-03 between now and the debates about them in June. There is a considerable amount of time left, therefore I do not accept the complaint of some Members that there is not always sufficient time to scrutinise the matters fully. I recognise that the timescale in this part of the cycle is tight, but we are revisiting issues in respect of which there has been much opportunity for debate and scrutiny.
Finally, and most importantly, we are about to begin an important spending review. In looking to the future, Committees and the Assembly can now begin to scrutinise and analyse spending plans for 2003-04. Seamus Close pointed out that the Estimates were prepared on a resource basis, as were the Main Estimates last June, and cover allocations previously announced after the June, September and December monitoring rounds, all of which were the subject of detailed statements to the Assembly. The Estimates also cover the second round of allocations from the Executive programme funds, which were the subject of a statement to the House on 3 December.
Information on all the significant issues that were addressed today has been available to the Committees. The Committees could have pursued any matter with their Departments through the available channels on the basis of information that was provided in the context of earlier monitoring decisions and Budget proposals.
I was impressed by the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment’s point that that Committee had set about prioritising and, in consultation with the Department, addressing the priorities that had been set by the Department and itself. He said that there should be no reason why other Committees might not adopt a similar approach and that it should not be difficult to obtain the level of access to departmental officials that the Environment Committee had to its Department. I believe that it is. Therefore, we should examine carefully how Committees contribute to the prioritisation and scrutiny process, both in retrospect and in prospect.
I have a great deal of sympathy with many of the views that were expressed, particularly the need to allow more time for consideration of the issues and to provide more user-friendly documentation. We will re-examine the issue and consider what improvements we could make. I will continue to take on board the Finance and Personnel Committee’s views in that regard. I trust that the Committee will acknowledge that in my short period in office I have lost no time in making myself available to it when my presence was requested. I have also made myself available to the Committee Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson.
I again emphasise that Committees are free to ask questions at any stage of the processes that are now being concluded in these Estimates. That applies equally to discussions about the annual Budget and each monitoring round. Committee members do not need a signal from the Minister of Finance and Personnel that they may begin their scrutiny.
Several members have reasonably pointed out the sheer complexity and comparison of the material in front of us. I share the sense that there are more questions than answers, and that answers are sometimes hard to find. The details in the Estimates are necessary to fulfil the legislative obligations on Departments and on the Department of Finance and Personnel, which mirrors practice elsewhere. I wonder what Members’ reactions would be if we were to provide less information. I imagine that the point would rightly be made that we were concealing details that Members were entitled to have access to as regards how we spend the finances available to us. So, regrettably there is a degree of detail and complexity in the documentation before us. That follows a requirement that I — and I would like to think that many, if not all, Members of the Assembly — would want to see upheld. We should be fully accountable; and we should provide all of the detail necessary to be accountable to the House for all of the expenditure that is undertaken in its name.
There is still a case of a fundamental review of our processes, but we must confirm this in terms of resources and capital — as now required under resource budgeting — and deal with the varied responsibilities of different organisations in Departments, non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), North/South bodies, et cetera, all of which affect the complexity of the material in front of us. I have no difficulty with the proposition that we should continually review and update our processes in all of these regards.
Francie Molloy and Seamus Close expressed concerns about the amounts of funding that have regularly become available for in-year allocation. It is clearly an important principle that money not required for the purpose for which it was originally allocated should be made available for reallocation by the Executive and the Assembly. The nature of the in-year monitoring process also means that it is important that Departments identify easements as early as possible in the year, so that the funding can be deployed elsewhere. Monitoring rounds are therefore designed to deal with short-term, emerging spending pressures and easements. They are not a proper means of addressing longer-term, strategic spending priorities, and successful in-year bids do not imply that the additional resources will be available in subsequent years.
However, I imagine that, just as in the spending plans of almost any institution, if we were not in a position to address immediate pressures — emergencies — which cannot by their nature be anticipated when the detailed budgeting exercise is carried out, there would be significant complaints and concerns raised. If we were not to have the kind of flexibility that in-year monitoring provides us with, we would have to resort to an exercise such as reducing expenditure on programmes that were already in train. Members would find themselves faced with unenviable choices in that situation.
While we endeavour to ensure that our budgetary planning is as precise and as focused as possible — I made this point to the Committee, and I did not hear any resiling from it — it is almost impossible to imagine a situation in which expenditure planned considerably in advance is going to be carried out in precisely the manner and to the last pound that it was planned for at that initial point.
As I explained in my opening remarks, the financial planning and budgetary cycle is lengthy. We are also in a time of transition, with new Departments undertaking new areas of work, and that can make it difficult to forecast accurately in advance. The Executive have agreed that we should look at our financial monitoring systems to see if we can understand the reasons for those underspends, with the aim of improving our forecasting.
The Executive programme funds referred to by Patricia Lewsley are a means by which the Executive are determined to break away from inherited spending patterns and to ensure that resources are targeted in line with the Executive’s strategic priorities. They are a clear response to the demand, frequently heard in this Chamber, that we should be innovative and break away from the old patterns of expenditure. I do not believe that we can break away completely. Many Members, upon scrutiny of current expenditure, would agree that much of it is well justified and necessary in order to ensure that the services that it is there to provide can continue to be delivered.
Notwithstanding that, the Executive have clearly stated that they want, within those constraints, to be innovative. We welcome views from Committees, and from the Floor of the House, with respect to how we might more effectively target Executive programme funds in future. Those funds represent a significant financial investment, and we need to be sure that they are achieving their objectives. We also wish to ensure that the processes for managing and allocating the funds are as efficient and effective as possible.
That is why the Executive are carrying out a review of the operation of the Executive programme funds. That review has been informed by the report of the Committee for Finance and Personnel. While the Executive have still to consider the review, there are some issues that will need to be addressed, such as the promotion of cross-cutting work by Departments and greater administrative simplicity.
Many Members, including Seamus Close, John Kelly and Jane Morrice, referred to the problems in health and personal social services. I should not forget to add to that list Robert McCartney, who made one of his infrequent appearances among us this afternoon. Those problems are of great concern to the Executive, and we recognise that there are very real problems that need to be addressed. Next year, health spending will be some £224 million higher than the provision for the current year. That is almost 10% — 9·7%, for those who are keen on mathematical accuracy. That represents a very significant addition and clearly demonstrates the importance that we attach to that area. I recognise that some Members may not consider that level of funding to be anywhere near adequate.
As an Executive, we have to live within our overall budget, and additional funding for health and social care means less funding for some other area. The scale of the challenge facing the Executive has been made very clear today by the number of calls for increased spending on a variety of different programmes.
I also remind Members of the positive steps which the Executive have taken to control deficits and to try to ensure proper financial management and control in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. In response to a point raised by Jane Morrice, I confirm that the need for resources of £10 million for trust deficits was drawn to the Assembly’s attention in Mark Durkan’s statement on June monitoring. It is not something new that has been sprung upon us today. The Executive’s decision was made public during the summer recess.
We also need to recognise that additional resources represent only part of the solution. We must ensure that the expenditure that we are allocating is used to the greatest possible effect. To that end, we are carrying out a needs and effectiveness evaluation into health and social care so that we can better understand what we achieve with what we spend.
Members will appreciate that there are no easy answers. We will be paying careful attention to the question of health expenditure in our analysis of next year’s spending review. The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel questioned the proposed local strategic partnership formula. This issue has caused concern, and I attempted to address it earlier during Question Time. I can confirm that the proposed allocations are consistent with the overall objectives of the Peace II programme, and that the use of population weighted by deprivation is a specific European Commission requirement in the operational programme.
Francie Molloy also called for greater investment west of the Bann, invoking new targeting social need as the basis for his call. The policy aims to tackle social need and social exclusion throughout Northern Ireland. This will mean using more of our existing resources to benefit people and areas in greatest objective social need. It also means delivering our policies in ways that are more helpful to those in need. New targeting social need is implemented through a range of policies and programmes, and I am confident that it will have a positive impact on tackling unemployment and addressing inequality wherever those problems exist.
Eddie McGrady raised the question of additional funding announcements for English programmes such as health, education and transport. I can confirm that my officials closely monitor those areas as part of their regular liaison with the Treasury. Of course, any resultant resources are referred to the Executive for decisions on allocation, usually in the next available monitoring round, rather than simply going to the comparable programme here. However, I caution Members to read the small print when they hear announcements made in Whitehall or elsewhere before making points about an immediate consequential allocation here, proportionate to what may or may not have been announced across the water.
Mr McGrady asked whether funding was available for the implementation of the Hayes review. The Executive will shortly be considering how to take that review forward and will be carefully examining the potential expenditure implications over the coming months. Mr McGrady also asked about residential care for the elderly. Last year, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety established an interdepartmental working group to examine the costs and implications of introducing free personal care. Once this group reports its findings, the Executive will need to consider the implications of this policy in light of their other priorities.
The same Member also raised the identification of additional sources of funding for public services. This is a key area for further consideration, and its importance to the Executive is evidenced by its inclusion as a priority in the Programme for Government, with actions on such issues as public-private partnerships and a review of rating policy.
Eddie McGrady, Rev Dr Ian Paisley and Rev Dr William McCrea raised the issue of funding for agricultural development in 2002-03. The position on the vision group has been advised to the Assembly on several occasions. The consultation period has ended, and the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development has begun to draw up a strategic plan of action to take the process forward. Early retirement and new entrants schemes will be considered as part of the action plan. As yet, no funds have been allocated to implement the vision group’s recommendations in 2002-03. As Members will appreciate from what I have just said, a great deal of the hard work is being undertaken to formulate the precise proposals that arise out of the vision group’s report.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley raised the issue of a definition of rural proofing. Executive approval to a formal definition of rural proofing has not yet been given. However, the concept of rural proofing is a process that ensures that all relevant Executive policies are examined carefully and objectively to determine whether they have a different impact in rural areas. It examines the characteristics of rural areas and, where necessary, what policy adjustments may be made to reflect rural needs and to ensure that, as far as possible, public services are accessible on a fair basis to the rural community.
Ian Paisley Jnr and Jane Morrice asked why payments in respect of animal disease compensation have risen sharply in recent years, and George Savage also raised the issue of variations. It has been normal practice to allocate additional resources to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in-year to meet pressures in that area. However, steps were taken in the 2000 spending review to enable the baseline to reflect the needs more accurately. Reviews of all aspects of control measures for brucellosis and tuberculosis are currently under way, and consideration will be given to the introduction of further, or different, measures to lower their incidences. The reviews will be completed in two to three months.
Jane Morrice sought confirmation that no moneys would be returned to Brussels from the Peace I programme. Our latest estimates show that we expect to achieve a full spend under the programme, although it will be some time before we receive formal confirmation of that. With respect to pensions and their allocation in the Department of Finance and Personnel budget, the costs are borne in annually managed expenditure and, therefore, do not restrict or affect the pressures available for allocation by the Executive.
With regard to the detail, the main reason for the £19 million rise is increased transfer costs — in other words, scheme members who transfer to other schemes. The second reason for the increase is the early retirement of members who have reached 60 years of age. They fall within the scope of the scheme for the first time. The age profile of the Civil Service and a consequent higher number of staff reaching retirement age also contribute to the increase.
Rev Dr William McCrea raised a point about nurses. Some years ago there was a reduction in the numbers entering training for nursing, which has led to a decline in the numbers entering the profession. The Department recently increased the numbers to be admitted to training, but it will take some time to increase the numbers working in the profession. Sammy Wilson suggested that better use of resources allocated to North/South bodies could be achieved by channelling those resources elsewhere, especially to health.
I remind Members of the Assembly that — as I have attempted to underline several times — health is a priority of the Executive. However, that is not to say that we should spend all of our money on health and none on anything else.
As Members will be aware through reports brought to the Floor of the House by Ministers attending meetings of the Council, the North/South Ministerial Council is developing programmes of considerable benefit in a wide range of areas, from trade, to education, to cultural matters of benefit to communities North and South. As the projects associated with the plans of the North/South Ministerial Council and its various implementation bodies roll out, the establishment of the Council will be vindicated by the benefits which will be felt, particularly in border areas, and throughout the North and South.
I have attempted to cover almost all of the main points made by Members in their contributions. However, I am aware that I have been unable to cover all of the points that they have raised. Those that have not been touched upon in my concluding remarks will receive a written response, either from myself or from the Minister directly responsible.
Once again, I want to acknowledge that I regard this debate as having been significant, certainly for myself, as I am still in my infant days with regard to the responsibilities in the Department of Finance and Personnel. The learning curve is steep, but it has been a helpful contribution to progressing up that curve, whether from Members whose remarks were highly critical of what I, as spokesperson for the Executive today, am attempting to do or from the smaller number whose remarks were complimentary. Nonetheless, I acknowledge Members’ contributions in both respects.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
That this Assembly approves that a further sum not exceeding £198,035,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2002 and that further resources, not exceeding £574,419,000, be authorised for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2002 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 2(b) and 3(b) of Table 1 in the volume of the Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates 2001-02 that was laid before the Assembly on 11 February 2002.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
That this Assembly approves that a sum not exceeding £3,936,009,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund on account for or towards defraying the charges for Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2003 and that resources, not exceeding £4,486,387,000, be authorised, on account, for use by Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Northern Ireland Audit Office, the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and the Office for the Regulation of Electricity and Gas for the year ending 31 March 2003 as summarised for each Department or other public body in columns 4 and 6 of Table 1 in the Vote on Account 2002-03 document that was laid before the Assembly on 11 February 2002. — [The Minister of Finance and Personnel.]
Adjourned at 6.51 pm.